>> 
u 
c 

Q> 

B 
ctf 

•tH 

00  -rH 

o 

s 

in  C 
0) 

X  73 

PQ  O 


o 


0? 


CO  <u 
00  Q> 


[Sion 


4  - 


I 


# 


THE 

TRUE  CATHOLIC 

NO 

ROMANIST. 


The  Holy  Catholic  Church. 


"Mother  of  cities !  o'er  thy  head 
Bright  peace,  with  healing  wings  outspread, 

For  evermore  shall  dwell : 
Let  me,  blest  seat;  niy  name  behold 
Among  thy  citizens  enroH'd, 
And  bid  the  world  farewell." 

Prayer  Book,  Hymn  28,  v.  5. 


THE  TRUE  CATHOLIC  NO  ROMIMST : 

A 

VINDICATION 

OF  THE 

APOSTOLICITY  AND  IXDEPENDEXCE 

OF  THE 

HOLY  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 


ENGLAND  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
B  Y 

REV.  WM.  H.  ODENHEIMER,  A.  M. 
Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Philadelphia, 
Author  of  ihe  Origin  and  Compilation  of  the  Prayer  Book. 


"  I  Believe  in  The  Holy  Catholic 

Chubch,  the  Communion  of  Saints." 

The  Creed. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

n.  S.  H.  GEORGE,  26  SOUTH  FIFTH  ST. 
1843. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the 
year  1843,  by  R.  S.  H.  George,  in  the  Clerk's  Office 
of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Penn- 
Bylvania. 


KING  AND  BAIRD,  PBINTEBS, 

No.  9  George  Street. 


T  O 

THE  CAUSE  OF  CATHOLIC  TRUTH 
AS  MAINTAINED 

IN 

THE  ONE  HOLY  AND  APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH  OF  CHRIST 

IN 

THE   UNITED  STATES; 

XaiS  TIXDICATIOX 
BY 

ONE  WHO  MINISTERS  AS 

A  PRIEST  AT  HER  ALTARS 

IS 

MOST  HUMBLY 


"  I  love  thy  kingdom,  Lord, 
The  house  of  thine  abode, 
The  Church  our  blest  Redeemer  saved 
With  his  own  precious  blood. 

I  love  thy  Church,  O  God! 

Her  walls  before  thee  stand, 
Dear  as  the  apple  of  thine  eye, 

And  graven  on  thy  hand. 

If  e'er  my  heart  forget 

Her  welfare,  or  her  wo. 
Let  every  joy  this  heart  forsake, 

And  every  grief  o'erflow. 

For  her  my  tears  shall  fall ; 

For  her  my  prayers  ascend  ; 
To  her  my  cares  and  toils  be  given, 

Till  toils  and  cares  shall  end." 

Pbaver  Book,  Hymn  29. 


PREFACE. 


The  reader  who  has  thought  the  following 
pages  worthy  of  perusal,  is  informed  that  many 
of  the  facts  contained  in  them,  were  published 
in  the  columns  of  one  of  our  religious  periodi- 
cals,* over  the  signature  "  Diaconus  CathoU- 
cus."  Having  attained  the  object  for  which 
they  were  then  published,  and  the  author  hav- 
ing been  urged  by  several  for  whose  judgment 
he  has  high  respect,  is  induced  to  set  them 
forth  in  a  more  permanent  and  extended  form, 
that  they  may  still  advance  in  some  degree,  the 
cause  of  truth  in  regard  to  our  holy  Church. 

A  farther  inducement  to  undertake  the  work, 
was  found  in  the  interest  which  his  fellow 


*  The  Banner  of  the  Cross. 


viii 


PREFACE. 


Churchmen,  and  several  not  of  that  number, 
have  manifested  in  the  second  section  of  the 
second  chapter  of  the  author's  former  work  on 
*'The  Origin  and  Compilation  of  the  Prayer 
Book.''  The  section,  containing  only  about 
forty  pages,  and  embracing  a  rapid  sketch  of 
the  ancient  history  of  Christ's  Holy  Church  in 
Britain,  our  spiritual  mother,  has  received  a 
degree  of  attention,  which  has  invited  a  farther 
illustration  of  this  interesting  and  import- 
ant subject,  What  was  there  rapidly  sketched 
in  outline,  and  subordinately,  will  now  appear 
in  detail,  and  as  the  prominent  feature  of  this 
work.  For  years,  the  members  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States  have 
borne  in  comparative  silence,  the  unrighteous 
misrepresentation  of  the  Romish  sect ;  know- 
ing, (as  St.  Paul,  the  original  founder  of  their 
Church  has  said,)  that  of  faith,  hope,  and 
charity,  "the  greatest  of  these  is  charity." 
And  although  now  in  various  quarters  the 
Priests  of  the  Church  have  been  forced  to 
publish  defences  of  the  faith,  and  exposures 


PREFACE. 


ix 


of  the  misrepresentations  of  their  erring  Romish 
brethren,  yet  it  is  hoped,  there  will  never  ap- 
pear a  forgetfulness  of  this  Apostolic  grace  of 
charity. 

In  the  following  pages,  it  is  respectfully  pre- 
mised, there  will  be  discovered  by  equitable 
and  competent  judges,  no  want  of  charity. 
That  there  will  be  found  a  plain,  and  right 
earnest  defence  of  the  Church,  and  as  plain 
and  right  honest  exposure  of  the  misrepresen- 
tations of  the  Romish  sect,  there  is  no  doubt. 
But  in  this,  there  can  be  no  want  of  Evangeli- 
cal charity,  which  we  are  taught  in  holy  Scrip- 
ture to  believe  "  rejoiceth  not  in  iniquity  but 
rejoiceth  in  the  truth."* 

At  the  very  threshold  of  this  book,  the  au- 
thor professes  what  in  his  heart  he  feels,  cor- 
dial respect  for  the  persons  of  Romanists. 
Their  official  anathemas  and  private  denuncia- 
tions against  the  Church,  have  not  availed  to 
make  him  respect  their  persons  less  ;  he  and 


♦  1  Corinth,  xiii.  6. 


X 


PREFACE, 


all  the  membeis  of  Christ's  Holy  Church  in 
this  land,  are  taught  in  their  solemn  Litany  to 
use  the  following  supplication : 

"  That  it  may  please  thee  to  forgive  our 

EXEMIES,    PERSECUTORS*    and  SLANDERERS, 

and  to  turn  their  hearts  ; 

We  beseech  thee  to  hear  us,  good  Lord." 

But  for  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Romanists, 
neither  the  author  nor  any  member  of  the 
Church  bears  the  least  love,  for  in  the  same 
solemn  Litany  they  are  taught  to  supplicate : 
From  all  false  doctrine,  heresy  and  schism, 
Good  Lord  deliver  us." 

The  distinction  between  persons  and  doc- 
trines is  one  which  approves  itself  to  every 
reflecting  mind ;  it  is  one  which  in  ordinary 
matters  is  acted  upon  by  all  men.  Doubtless 
there  are  many  who  read  these  words  who  love 
the  persons  of  those,  whose  principles  they 
love  not.    And  our  blessed  Master  loved  even 

*  Persequar  et  impugnabo. 

Romish  Episcopal  Oath. 


PREFACE. 


xi 


unto  death,  the  death  of  the  Cross,  the  persons 
of  the  Jews,  whilst  he  exposed  and  preach- 
ed against  their  erroneous  doctrines  and  prin- 
ciples. 

That  many  of  the  more  violent  of  the  Rom- 
ish sect,  who  have  been  zealous  in  their  attacks 
upon  the  Church,  will  give  the  author  credit 
for  the  possession  of  the  above  sentiments,  is 
not  to  be  expected.  The  credit  or  the  discredit, 
however,  which  comes  from  such  a  source  will 
hardly  enter  into  his  consideration. 

It  were  an  easy  and  much  more  agreeable 
task,  to  have  republished  some  of  the  vindica- 
tions of  our  Church,  which  the  learned  Bish- 
ops of  England's  noble  Church  have  in  times 
past  set  forth,  but  the  prospect  of  being  able  to 
adapt  facts  to  present  circumstances,  has  led  the 
author  to  employ  according  to  his  own  arrange- 
ment, the  ample  materials  collected  by  the  indus- 
try and  learning  of  those  "  masters  of  Israel." 
No  credit  for  originality  is  asked,  or  desired,  if 
the  facts  presented  shall  suit  the  present  times, 


xii 


PREFACE. 


and  lead  the  members  of  Christ's  Holy  Church, 
to  see  the  Scriptural,  Apostolic  and  divine  char- 
acter of  their  Church,  and  the  misrepresenta- 
tion, as  well  as  erroneous  claims  of  the  Romish 
sect ;  if  the  book  shall  lead  those  into  whose 
hands  it  shall  fall,  to  cleave  with  every  energy 
of  their  souls  to  *'  the  Catholic  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  Saints,"  and  to  reject  with  the 
same  energy  the  modern  additions  and  novel 
innovations  of  Romanism,  and  all  other 
schisms,  then  shall  the  author  have  gained  all 
he  desired. 

The  Holy  Catholic  Church  and  Faith  of 
Christ  are  worthy  of  our  best  energies,— on  that 
rock  "  Christ  and  His  Church"  let  us  plant  our- 
selves, and  strive,  by  God's  grace,  to  commend 
the  faith  we  profess,  not  only  with  our  lips  but 
in  our  lives,  by  giving  up  ouiselves  to  our  Mas- 
ter's service,  and  by  walking  before  Him  in 
holiness  and  righteousness  all  our  days. 

W.  H.  O. 

Philadelphia, 
Lent,  1843. 


CONTENTS. 


Preface,  vii. 

Chapter  I.  1 

The  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Britain 
—St.  Paul  the  founder  of  the  British  Church. 

Chapter  IT.  21 

The  true  character  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  in  England,  and  the  United  States. — 
Her  Apostolical  Succession  through  St.  Paul 
and  St.  Peter. 

Chapter  III.  33 

The  Double  Line  of  Apostolical  Succession, 
possessed  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  En- 
gland and  the  United  States. 


xiv 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  IV.  47 

The  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England  and 
the  United  States,  distinguished  from  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church. 

Chapter  V.  60 

Tne  Ecclesiastical  Settlement  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  in  Primitive  Times  and  the 
usurpation  of  the  Roman  Branch. 

Chapter  VI.  73 

The  Unity  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  dis- 
turbed by  the  anti-scriptural  and  novel  doc- 
trine of  the  Pope's  Supremacy. 

Chapter  VII.  86 

The  Pope's  Supremacy,  a  new  and  anti- 
scriptural  doctrine. 

Chapter  VIII.  98 

The  origin  of  the  new  anti-scriptural  doc- 
trine of  the  Pope's  Supremacy. 

Chapter  IX.  107 

The  progress  of  the  new  and  anti-scriptura. 
doctrine  of  the  Pope's  Supremacy. 


CONTENTS. 


XV 


Chapter  X.  122 

The  establishment  of  the  new  and  anti-scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  the  Pope's  Supremacy. 

Chapter  XI.  133 

The  palitical  character  of  the  Pope's  Su- 
premacy. 

Chapter  XII.  150 

Conclusion. 


"O  Almighty  God,  who  hast  built 
thy  Church  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  head  cor- 
ner stone;  grsftit  us  so  to  be  joined 
together  in  Unity  of  Spirit  by  their 
doctrine,  that  we  may  be  made  a  holy 
temple  acceptable  unto  thee,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." — imen. 

Prayer  Book, 
St.  Simon  and  St.  Jude,  Apostles. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE   INTRODUCTION  OF  CHRISTIANITY  INTO 
BRITAIN ;   ST.  PAUL  THE  FOUNDER  OF 
THE  BRITISH  CHURCH. 

The  subject  of  the  following  chapter  is  of 
great  importance  to  every  Churchman.  I 
shall  be  intent  on  facts^  and  aim  to  be  per- 
spicuous :  this  will  account  fo^  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  chapter,  and  the  unadorned 
character  of  its  statements.  My  readers 
may  rely  upon  the  historical  information, 
since,  it  has  been  compiled  with  care,  from 
writers  of  deep  erudition  and  unimpeacha- 
ble authority. 


2 


I. 

Reason  for  attending  to  tlie  following 
subject. 

The  higher  the  man,  the  greater  his  au- 
thority. I  give  the  reason  in  the  words  of 
the  Bishop  of  St.  David's,*  who  is  styled  by 
"  Chevalier,"  and  endorsed  by  the  present 
Bishop  of  Maryland,-}-  as  "  a  learned  and 
zealous  advocate."  Just  praise  from  a  com- 
petent source ! 

"  St.  Paul  was  not  only  the  founder  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  but  of  the  Church  in 
Britain.  Of  St.  Paul's  journey  to  Britain, 
a  point  of  great  importance  in  the  history  of 
the  Gospel,  and  of  the  Protestant  church, 
we  fortunately  possess  as  substantial  evidence 
as  any  historical  fact  can  require. 

Some  of  our  most  valuable  historians 
have  no  scruple  in  acceding  to  the  general 
testimony  of  the  fathers,  that  the  gospel  was 

*  Letter  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Diocese  of  St.  David's, 
t  Notes  to  Epist.  Clem.  Roman.   Note  A. 


3 


preached  in  Britain  by  some  of  the  apostles, 
soon  after  the  middle  of  the  first  century, 
bat  shrink  from  the  particular  evidences  of 

time  and  person,  and  in  this,  it 

is  certainly  much  to  be  regretted,  that  ihey 
have  given  some  advantage  to  the  advocates  of 
popery  and  injideliiy ;  to  the  former  b}^  the 
suppression  of  evidences,  which  disprove 
the  right  of  supremacy  in  the  church  of 
Rome;  and  to  the  latter,  by  withdrawing 
some  strong  and  tangible  proofs  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity." 

II. 

Cliief  cause  of  tlxe  mistakes  in  refer- 
ence to  tlie  early  testimonies  on  tliis 
subject,  and  of  tl:  ant  of  interest  on 
tlie  part  of  modern  charclimen. 

The  cause  is  founded  in  a  most  inexcusa- 
ble ignorance  of  the  importance  of  Britain 
in  a  civil  point  of  view,  its  well  known  lo- 
cality, and  its  intimate  connexion  with  the 
imperial  city.    Some  modern  writers,  espe- 


4 


cially  of  the  Romish  sect,  talk  of  Britain 
in  early  times,  as  if  it  were  some  place  in 
the  moon a  kind  of  bombastic  expression, 
like  our  "  far  west,"  the  which,  the  traveller 
is  paradoxically  supposed  to  be  receding 
from,  the  nearer  he  approaches. 

And  many  modern  churchmen  appear  to 
have  no  very  definite  idea  of  ancient  Bri- 
tain ;  save  that  it  was  a  land  of  chariots  with 
iron  scythes  in  the  wheels,  half  naked  sa- 
vages, man  eaters,  and  Druids ;  and  are 
disposed  to  give  in,  to  the  Romanists  con- 
venient talk,  about  the  early  fathers  speaking 
bombastically;  and  to  neglect  the  investi- 
gation of  this  noble  argument,  which  (among 
many  others,)  proclaims  the  wide  spread  of 
the  gospel,  and  the  apostolical  character  of 
the  holy  Catholic  church  to  which  they 
belong. 


5 


III. 

The  state  of  Britain  in  primitive  days, 
wliicli  suljstaijtiates  tlie  fact  of  its 
■being  well  known,  and  of  liigh  impor- 
tance. 

After  the  success  of  Claudius,  (about 
20  years  before  Nero,  during  whose  reign 
St.  Paul  was  martyred)  New  Settlements 
were  daily  made  by  the  Romans.  There 
were  Roman  colonies,  Magistrates,  Cities 
and  Ways. 

"  There  were  cities  of  trade  :  and  Roman 
merchants  were  very  busy  in  furnishing 
necessaries  and  even  superfluities.''^  There 
was  a  constant  intercourse  with  Rome ;  and 
in  Nero's  time,  Dio*  tells  us  that  one  man, 
and  he  a  philosopher,  (Seneca)  had  300,000/. 
at  one  time,  in  Britain.  Britain  was  the 
scene  of  many  notable  warlike  actions, 
the  occasion  of  Emperors  additional  titles 
and  triumphs,  the  residence  of  Roman  lieu- 


*  Xiphil  in  Neron. 


6 


tenants  and  legions;  so  that  long  before 
the  time  of  Eusebius,  the  earliest  ecclesias- 
tical historian  of  note,  the  British  Islands 
were  well  known  all  over  the  Roman  em- 
pire, and  in  his  time,  they  were  "  the  talk 
of  the  world."  Here  Constantius  died  :  and 
here  Constantine  was  declared  emperor  by 
the  army.  So  that  from  the  beginning, 
Britain  was  a  well  known,  and  well  de- 
fined locality.* 

Now  with  these  facts,  which  the  civil, 
not  the  religious  historians,  of  earlier  days, 
afford,  it  is  quite  absurd  to  hear  the  term 
bombastic^  applied  to  the  language  of  divers 
early  fathers,  when  they  allude  to  Britain. 
Why  they  knew  just  as  well  the  situation 
of  Britain,  as  an  intelligent  American  does 
that  of  the  West  Indies. 

And  Clemens  Romanus,  Eusebius,  and 
their  brother  writers,  would  have  felt  it  no 

*  See  Stilling:  Orig.  Brit:  and  Camden's  Britan- 
nia, for  farther  particulars. 


7 


more  a  compliment,  to  have  been  told  that 
they  did  not  know  what  country  was  at  the 
"  extreme  west,''''  than  any  of  my  readers 
would,  to  be  told  that  they  did  not  know 
what  ocean  bounded  America  on  the  west. 

IV. 

Certain  Romisli  opinions  concerning 
Cliristianity  in  Britain. 

The  opinion  concerning  St.  Paul,  which 
some  of  the  ablest  divines  have  maintained, 
seems  to  afford  rare  sport,  to  a  few  of  the 
Romish  writers,  as  if  nothing  could  be  more 
chimerical ;  I  will  give  a  specimen  of  Romish 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  introduction 
of  Christianity  into  Britain. 

There  is  a  manuscript  in  the  Vatican  Li- 
brary, (so  one*  of  their  historians  tells  us) 
which  affirms,  that  Joseph  of  Jlrimathea 
came  over  into  Britain  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel ! — and  what  is  more,  he  came  across  the 

*  Baionius,  A.  D.  35,  n  5. 


8 


Mediterranean  sea  in  "  a  ship  without 
oars  /"  and  what  is  better  still,  he  had  the 
good  company,  as  far  as  Marseilles,  of  Laz- 
arusy  Mary  Magdalen,  Martha  !  §rc. 

A  valuable  manuscript  that!  To  which 
by  the  way  I  add  the  authority  of  another 
Romish  historian  who  gives  us  the  informa- 
tion, that  Lazarus  was  bishop  of  Mar- 
seilles.* 

V. 

A  brief  abstract  of  tlie  testimonies  of  tlie 
Fatlicrs  of  tlie  first  six  centuries  to  tlie 
trutli  of  tliis  matter. 

The  limits  of  this  work  will  not  allow  of 
the  transcript  of  the  original  text  of  the  au- 
thorities quoted  below;  nor  even  of  a  full 
translation  of  the  context; — a  "brief  ab- 
stract" is  all  that  is  designed. 

*  Bosquet's  Ilisl.  Eccle  :  Gallic,  lib.  I.  c.  3. 


9 


FIRST  CENTURY. 

Clemens  Romanus,  the  friend  and  fel- 
low labourer  of  St.  Paul,  says,  St.  Paul 
went  to  "  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  west." 

I  Not  to  the  moon,  but  to  the  "utmost 
[  bounds  of  the  west:" — the  first  would  be 
j  bombastic,  the  last,  Britain;  according  to 
I  the  ideas  of  a  resident  at  Rome,  as  Clement 
was. 

SECOND  CENTURY. 

Iren^us*  says  "  Christianity  was  propa- 
gated by  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples  to 
the  utmost  bounds  of  the  earth,  especially  in 
Spain,  and  the  Celtick  nations^''  (viz  Germans, 

Gauls,  AND  BpiTAINS.f ) 

THIRD  CENTURY. 

Tertullian:^  says,  "  Some  countries  of 

♦  L.  1.  c.  2  and  3. 

f  Cluverii  Introd.  Geog.  L.  II.  c.  5. 
X  Adv.  JudcE  c.  7. 


1« 

10 


the  Britons,  which  proved  inaccessible  to 
the  Romans,  are  subject  to  Christ:*  and 
0  RIG  EN  confirms  ihe  general  point  as  to 
the  early  extension  of  Christianity  in  Britain. 

FOURTH  CENTURY. 

EusEBius|  says  that  some  of  the  Apostles 
passed  over  the  ocean  to  the  British  Isles. 

Jerome:|:  says  that  St.  Paul  having  been 
in  Spain,  went  from  ocean  to  ocean  and 
"  preached  the  Gospel  in  the  western  parts 
including  the  Britons  in  this  expression, 
as  is  evident  from  other  portions  of  his 
works. 

Chrysostom,§  witnesses  to  the  great 
spread  of  Christianity  in  Britain. 

FIFTH  CENTURY. 

Theodoret  says,  "  Our  Fishermen  and 
*  In  Ezek. 

t  Demon.  Evan.  L.  3.  c.  7. 

X  Ep.  ad,  Marcellam,  Op.  Vol.  1.  p.  128,  Ed.  Lugd. 
$  Tom.  vi.  p.  635. 


11 


Publicans,  and  he  who  was  a  tent-maker, 
carried  the  evang-elical  precepts  to  all  na- 
tions— Scythians,  Hunns,  Britons. 

He  also  affirms,  that  St.  Paul  "brought 
salvation  to  the  Islands  that  lie  in  the 
ocean:"*  or  British  Islands,  as  is  evident 
from  Nicephorusj"  and  again  from  Chrysos- 
tom.:|: 

Gildas  witnesses  to  the  early  introduction 
of  Christianity.  § 

SIXTH  CENTURY. 

Venantius  (A.  D.  560-600)  says  of  St. 
Paul,  that  he  went  to  Britain.  This  writer 
is  supposed  to  speak  fiction^  because  he 
speaks  in  poetry :  which  is  no  better  com- 
pliment to  the  Poets,  than  the  charge  of 
Bombast  is  to  the  ancient  Fathers. 

*  2  Ep.  ad.  Tim.  iv.  17. 
t  Hist.  L.  11.  c.  40. 
t  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  575. 
}  Op.  p,  10. 


12 


VI. 

Tlie  testimony  of  two  of  tliese  ancient 
Fathers,  examined  in  connexion  witli 
attendant  circumstances. 

Take  for  example  Clement  of  Rome,  and 
Eusebius. 

(A.)  Clement  says  "  St.  Paul  preached 
Righteousness  through  the  whole  world, 
and  in  so  doing  he  went  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  the  west.''^ 

Now  this  phrase  means  Britain  for  five 
reasons. 

(1.)  Britain  was  in  point  of  fact  the  ut- 
most bounds  of  the  west. 

(2.)  Clement  knew  what  he  was  writing 
about. 

(3.)  There  are  other  writers  showing 
that  this  expression  about  "/Ae  tc-es/'^ -refers  to 
Britain. 

Plutarch  calls  the  British  Channel,  the 
Western  Ocean. 
Herodotus  says.    'J'lie  Celtae  are  the  most 


13 


"  western  of  all  Europeans  :"  and  the  Britons 
are  the  most  western  of  the  Celtae. 

Horace  calls  the  Britons  "ultimos  orbis 
Britanos." 

Catullus  calls  Britain  "  ultimam  Occiden- 
tis  Insulam."* 

(4.)  The  fourth  reason  is  one  of  the 
strongest,  Launoy,"j"  a  learned  Romish  writer, 
rejects  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  because  he 
says,  if  it  will  hold  good  for  St.  Paul's  going 
to  Gaul,  it  will  hold  good  for  his  going  to 
Britain : 

(5.)  L.  Capellus,  another  and  learned 
Romanist,  rejects  the  truth  about  St.  Paul, 
by  confessing  "  that  he  rejects  the  common 
and  received  opinion  of  all  the  Fathers. 

(B.)  EusEBius  says  that  the  Apostles 
preached  among  the  Romans,  Persians,  Ar- 
menians, &c.,  and  that  some  passed  over 

*  Vide  Eusebius.  Theod.  and  Arnob.  in  Ps.  147. 
t  De  loc.  Sulp.  Sev.  $  20. 


14 


the  ocean  to  those  which  are  called  the  Bri- 
tish Isles. 

1  have  three  reasons  for  the  high  authority 
and  literal  truth  of  this  writer. 

(1.)  He  knew  what  he  was  writing 
about,  and  therefore  spake  according  to  lite- 
ral geographical  truth. 

(2.)  His  thorough  acquaintance  with 
Britain ;  being  a  favourite  with  the  Emperor 
who  was  born  there :  and  being  acquainted 
with  the  Bishops  at  the  Council  of  Nice, 
who  coming  from  the  west,  as  well  as  other 
parts,  could  give  him  information. 

(3.)  His  desire  for  accuracy;  and  the  op- 
portunity for  his  being  accurate,  afforded 
by  the  favourable  circumstances  under  which 
he  compiled  his  Ecclesiastical  History. 

VII. 

St.  Paul  liad  tlie  TIME  to  goto  Britain. 

He  was  sent  prisoner  to  Rome  near  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Nero,  and  behead- 


15 


ed  in  the  I4tb  year  of  Nero;*  hence  it  was 
eight  years,-\  or  more,:j:  from  his  release 
from  his  first  imprisonment  till  his  death, 
during  which  time  it  has  been  shown  that 
he  went  to  Britain. 

VIII. 

St.  Panl  having  the  time,  had  the  ZE  AI*. 

This  might  be  taken  for  granted  ;  but  re- 
fer to  some  of  his  other  journies. 

(1.)  His  first  journey  in  Asia  Minor^ 
(Acts  13:  14,)  lead  him  from  Antioch  to 
Seleucia,  Cyprus,  Perga,  Iconium,  Lystra, 
and  Derbe,  and  back  again :  The  whole  jour- 
ney took  three  years  according-  to  the  Romish 
Baronius. 

(2.)  His  second  journey,  (Acts  15:  &:c.,) 
lead  him  from  Antioch,  through  Syria  and 
Cilicia,  to  Derbe,  and  Lystra,  through 

*  Euseb.  in  Chron.  Hierom.  in  Catal. 
t  Godeau  vie  de  St.  Paul,  1.  ii.  p.  2S6. 
t  Baron.  A.  D.  61.  No.  2.  and  Historia  Magdeburg. 


16 


Phrygia  and  Galatia  and  Mysia,  over  the 
sea  from  Troas  to  Macedonia,  to  Thessa- 
lonica,  Berea,  Athens,  Corinth,  and  then 
after  eighteen  months  spent  in  Corinth, 
back  to  Syria.  All  of  which  took  up  three 
years.  * 

(3.)  His  third  journey  led  him  from  Anti- 
och  over  all  Galatia  and  Phrygia  in  one 
year. 

IX. 

St.  Paul  liaving  leisure  and  zeal,  liad 
E:]VC0URAG£M£:NT  to  go  to  Britain. 

Because, 

(1.)  Of  the  importance  of  the  place,  there 
being  an  "infinite  number  of  people,"f  and 
so  many  Roman  settlements,  civil,  military, 
and  trading. 

(2.)  The  wife  of  A.  Plautius,  the  Roman 
Lieutenant  under  Claudius  in  Britain,  was 

*  Baron,  A.  D.  51.  n.  56. 
t  Cassar,  lib.  5. 


17 


a  Christian,*  and  probably  converted  by 
St.  Paiil,-[-  also  Claudia,  the  daughter  of 
Caractacus,  the  celebrated  British  Chieftan 
was  a  Christian,  so  says  Moncaeius  a  Romish 
writer.:^  These  might  inform  St.  Paul  of 
many  reasons  for  his  going  to  Britain  and 
urge  him  to  go.§ 

X. 

St.  Paul  h.a'viug'  time,  zeal,  and  eucou- 
ragemeiit,  was  tlie  MOST  LlKELiY  of 
all  tbe  Apostles  to  go  to  Britain* 

Because, 

(1.)  There  is  no  competition  between 
any  of  the  Apostles,  save  between  St.  Paul 
and  St.  Peter.  !i 

*  Tacit  Annal  13.  c.  32.  compared  with  Piin.  Ep. 
lib.  10.  Ep.  98. 
t  Philip.  4.  22. 
T  De  Incan.  Reg.  Ecc.  Chr. 

$  Bp.  Burgess,  p.  323.  and  339.  and  Stillingfleet 
Or.  Br.  p.  44. 
I;  The  traditions  about  St.  James,  Simon  Zelotes, 
B 


18 


(2.)  St.  Peter's  visit  rests  on  the  autho- 
rity of  a  writer  of  the  tenth  century,*  Si- 
meon Metaphrastes,  and  other  legendary 
writers  of  later  date. 

(3.)  It  was  not  St.  Peter's  ^/ace  to  go  to 
Britain,  he  being  the  Apostle  of  the  circum- 
cision, or  of  the  Jews:  as  witnessed  by 
Holy  Scripture,  ancient  Fathers,  and 
Romish  writers,!  especially  Baronius4 
Perhaps  the  Romish  student,  on  referring 
to  Haronius,  may  be  a  little  surprised  to 
find  him  giving  his  testimony  in  favour  of 
St.  Peter  being  in  Britain,  when  he  has 
been  here  quoted  for  the  contrary;  but  it 
must  cause  no  surprise,  since  the  only  au- 
thority which  he  quotes  is  Simeon  Meta- 

and  St.  Philip,  are  destitute  of  any  ancient  testi- 
mony. 
*  Burgess  p'  840. 

f  Gal.  2:  7.  Hiero.  en  loc.  Epiph.  Hasr.  27.  n.  6. 
Euseb.  Hist.  lib.  3.  c.  1.  Petrus  de  Marca  de  Con- 
cord, 1,6.  c.  1.  n.  4. 

t  Baronius  A.  D.  61.  916.  26— 2g. 


19 


phrastes!  about  whom,  in  another  portion  of 
his  works,  (A.  D.  44,  n.  38,)  he  says  "  he  is 
of  no  authority  in  these  matters.^^ 

This  is  rather  contradictory,  but  Baronius 
was  right  in  telling  the  truth  of  this  Simeon, 
and  Linguard,*  the  Romish  Historian,  will 
tell  him  so,  for  he  calls  Simeon,  "  a  treache- 
rous authority." 

XI. 

Tbe  opinions  of  many  of  the  most 
learned,  and  deeply-  read  Theologians 
of  modern  days,  agree  with  the  truth 
of  this  matter  as  now  presented. 

The  language  of  Camden,  is,  "  the  Gospel 
was  preached  in  Britain  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  and  St.  Paul  himself  was  the 
preacher  of  it."f 

With  this  agree  Archbishop  Parker, 
Archbishop  Usher,  Bishops  Gibson,  Stil- 

*  Angl.  Sax.  Ch.— vol.  1.  p.  3. 
t  Brit.  Intr.  p.  86. 


20 


lingfleet,  Burgess,  Doctors  Cave,  CoUyer, 
Nelson,  Townsend,  &c. 

And  1  beg  my  readers  to  notice,  that  the 
most  learned  of  those,  who  will  not  venture 
to  single  out  St.  Paul  as  the  founder  of  the 
British  Church,  (though  admitting  that  some 
of  the  Apostles  did  found  it,)  will  not  posi- 
tively deny  that  St.  Paul  was  the  founder. 
Such  are  Drs.  Hales,  Fuller,  Southey,  Che- 
vallier.  Blunt,  Bloomfield,  Burton,  &c. 

Wherefore  we  conclude,  (and  amid  such 
a  goodly  host  of  Fathers  and  learned  Doc- 
tors, need  not  be  ashamed  of  our  conclusion, 
or  afraid  to  maintain  it,)  that  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  was  preached  in  Britain,  not 
only  by  some  of  the  apostles,  but  by  St. 
Paul,  (whose  boast  it  was  that  the  Gospel 
had  been  preached  "  to  every  nation  under 
heaven:'^'') — and  thatbyA/s  Apostolic  hands, 
was  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  established 
on  the  shores  of  our  mother  land,  and  thence 
derived  to  these  United  States  of  America. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  TRUE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  HOLY  CATHO- 
LIC CHURCH  IN  ENGLAND,  AND  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES.  HER  APOSTOLIC  SUC- 
CESSION THROUGH  ST.  PAUL  AND  ST. 
PETER. 

I. 

What  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
is  not. 

Whatever  may  be  the  phraseology  some- 
times used  by  her  members,  or  those  dis- 
senting from  her,  the  Church  is  not  one  of 
the  various  sects  or  denominations  which 
exist  around  her.  It  involves  no  want  of 
charity  to  assert  this,  neither  does  it  ar^ie 
Ijigotry  to  maintain  it.  Charity  has  nothing 
lo  do  with  the  bare  statement  of  a  fact,  and 


22 


bigotry  may  be  seen  just  as  plainly  in  him 
who  contends  for  all  men  being  right,  as 
in  him  who  contends  that  some  are  right 
and  some  wrong. 

With  the  most  unfeigned  charity  towards 
the  Romish  schismatics  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Protestant  schismatics  on  the  other: 
with  a  free  admission  of  their  zeal,  sincerity, 
learning,  piety,  and  salvability,  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  has  never  identified 
herself  with  them.    She  is  no  sect. 

II. 

What  tlie  Protestant  Episcopal 
Cliurch.  is. 

She  is  a  pure  and  legitimate  branch  of 
"the  Holy  Catholic  Church"  of  the  Apostles' 
creed, — of  "  the  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,"  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  She  is  a 
Protestant  Church,  because  she  contends  for 
"  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and 
protests,  in  so  doing,  against  the  corrupt 


23 


novelties  and  innovations  of  the  Romish,  and 
all  other  sects.  She  is  a  Catholic  Church, 
because  she  holds  to  the  doctrine,  discipline, 
and  worship,  which  bind  her  to  that  body, 
universal  as  to  permanency  and  place,  which 
Christ  established  as  "  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth;"  and  from  which  they  have 
separated  themselves,  who  reject  the  Apos- 
tolic succession  of  the  INIinistry  and  Doctrine. 
The  "title  page"  of  the  Prayer  Book  tells 
what  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is. 
"  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer^  and  admin- 
istration of  the  Sacraments^  and  other  Rites 
and  Ceremonies  of  the  church  according  to 
the  use,^^  ^  c.  ^c. 

III. 

Tlie  Position  of  the  Protestant  Spisco- 
.  pal  Cliurcli  misnnderstoocl* 

With  the  Romanist  there  appears  a  slight 

tincture  of  design  in  the  misunderstanding : 

with  the  Protestant  dissenter,  a  want  of  cor* 

rect  information. 


24 


Rome  wants  to  be  "mother  and  mistress," 
and  so  pretends  not  to  know  her  elder  sister.* 

And  so,  on  the  other  hand,  with  the  Pro- 
testant Dissenter :  That  seems  ignorance, 
(not  malice,)  which  identifying  the  rise  and 
establishment  of  the  several  denominations, 
with  the  origin  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  thinks  we  are  all  one  in  age,  and 
rightful  organization,  as  well  as  in  bro- 
therly kindness,  and  the  hope  of  the  Gospel. 

But  there  need  be  no  misunderstanding  : 
because  the  Church  in  England,  and  in  these 
United  States,  has  ever  occupied  but  one 
position,  high  though  it  be.  She  points  to 
and  condemns  those  innovations  which  con- 
stitute "Romanism"  or  "Dissent,"  as  the 
case  may  be. 

She  calls  no  one  "mistress;"  she  is 

*  The  British  Church,  was  founded  nine  years 
before  the  Roman  Church,  as  learned  Romanists 
themselves  acknowledgp.-Suarez  Dcf :  Fid.  Cath.  1  i. 
Baronius  de  MSS.  Vat. 


25 


OLDER  THAN  RoME  OR  GeNEVA  ;  AND  IN- 
STEAD OF  HAVING  LEFT  ANY  OTHER  BRANCH 

OF  THE  Holy  Catholic  Church,  has  in 
England  and  the  United  States,  been 

LEFT  BY  those  DENOMINATIONS  OR  SECTS 
WHICH  ARE  AROUND  HER. 

IV. 

How  th.e  Churcli  in  tliese  United  States 
maintains  HER  claims. 

By  an  appeal  to  history^  not  to  opinion ; 

by  going  to  facts  rather  than  to  abstract 

argument ;  by  tracing  her  succession  both  in 

her  ministry  and  doctrines,  first  to  the 

Church  in  England,  and  then,  through  that 

Church,  to  Jesus  Christ  the  chief  corner 

stone. 

V. 

How  the  Cliurtli  in  England  maintains 
HKR  claims. 

By  the  same  appeal  to  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory. The  existence  of  a  branch  of  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England,  from  the 


26 


present  time,  back  to  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
ties,  is  a  matter  of  fact,  capable  of  testimony, 
which  testimony  she  possesses  and  adduces, 
and  by  it  proves  beyond  all  possibility  of 
contradiction,  that  the  present  Church  in 
England,  is  the  true,  legal,  and  canonical 
branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and 
has  been  such  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

VI. 

The  connexion  whicli  binds  the  Churcli 
in  England,  (and  so  in  tlie  United 
States)  to  tlie  Apostles. 

This  connexion,  is  Apostolical  Succes- 
sion. And  Apostolical  Succession,  may  be 
considered  in  reference  to  the  ministry^  or 
doctrines  of  a  Church.  A  Church  which 
has  the  Apostolical  Succession  of  the  Mi- 
nistry, is  a  true  Church  as  to  its  ecclesias- 
tical organization,  but  if  it  have  not  the 
Apostolical  Succession  of  Doctrine^  there 
is  a  radical  and  essential  defect.  And  in 
this  situation  is  the  Church  of  Rome.  Her 


27 


orders  may  be  admitted  to  be  valid,  but  her 
doctrines  are  not  the  faith  once  delivered 
"  to  the  saints,"  but,  to  that  faith,  super- 
added novelties,  which  have  caused  trouble 
to  herself  and  her  sister  Churches. 

Now  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  Eng- 
land and  in  the  United  States,  has  the  Apos- 
tolical Succession,  ministerial  and  doctrinal. 
Her  ministry  traces  back  its  commission  to 
the  Apostles  Paul  and  Peter,  and  her  doc- 
trines as  set  forth  in  her  authoritative  docu- 
ments, are  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,"  as  all  admit,  who  "have  diligently 
read  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors." 

YTI. 

A  sketcli  of  tlie  Apostolical  Succession 
of  Ixer  Ministry. 

This  succession  is  twofold.  One  link 
binds  her  to  the  Apostles  through  St.  Paul, 
the  other  link  binds  her  to  the  Apostles 
through  St.  Peter. 

(1.)  St.  Paul  went  to  the  British  Islands 


28 


during  his  travels  in  the  West.  The  Church 
which  he  founded  continued  in  vigour  and 
comparative  purity  till  the  sixth  century, 
when  the  Saxon  invasion  rendered  necessary 
the  assistance  of  the  neighbouring  Irish  and 
Scotch  churches,  which  was  freelj^  given, 
and  by  their  labours  the  Saxons  were  mainly 
converted.* 

This  British  Church,  (strictly  so  called,) 
though  depressed  for  a  time,  was  never 
completely  destroyed;  and  the  learned  de- 
fenders of  the  present  Church  in  England, 
trace  their  Apostolical  Succession  through 
her,  as  will  be  shown  under  a  following 
section. 

(2.)  St,  Peter  founded  the  Church  at 
Rome,  (say  the  Romanists,  and  as  this  mat- 
ter chiefly  concerns  them,  we  take  them  on 
their  own  ground ;)  from  St.  Peter,  there- 

*  See  the  Author's  work  on  "  the  Origin  and  Com- 
pilation of  the  Prayer  Book." 


29 


fore,  by  Apostolical  Succession,  the  Romish 
Ministry  has  descended.  Now  some  of 
these  Romish  Bishops  came  into  Great  Bri- 
tain in  the  6th  century,  to  assist  the  British 
Church  in  converting  the  Saxpns,  just  as  the 
Irish  and  Scotch  did.  But  this  assistance, 
became  a  curse,  since  it  was  the  first  step 
towards  subjecting  the  independent  and 
Apostolic  Church  in  Britain,  to  the  unscrip- 
tural  and  uncanonical  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  During  the  period  of  this 
unrighteous  usurpation  over  the  British 
Church,  the  Romish  line  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession was  introduced  and  continued. 
British  men  were  led  to  believe  that  their 
allegiance  was  due  to  Rome ;  they  received 
her  innovations  for  truth,  they  became  min- 
isters, were  ordained  Bishops  by  Rome,  and 
so  the  Succession  of  Rome  was  transmitted 
down  through  British  men,  and  in  British 
Churches,  to  the  sixteenth  century,  to  Arch- 
bishop Craimier. 


30 


All  these  ordinations  were  valid  though 
uncanonical.  Apostolical  succession  is  not 
affected  by  the  moral  character  of  the  Or- 
dainer  or  the  Ordained.  And  when  British 
Churchmen  were  imbued  with  the  errors  of 
Rome,  and  ministered  to,  by  men  whose 
orders  were  Romish ;  when  they  knew  not 
the  truth,  but  supposed  they  were  doing 
right,  in  receiving  the  abominable  practices 
of  the  erring  Italian  Church,  they  still  were 
enjoying  the  blessings  of  an  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession. That  succession  through  Rome, 
up  to  St.  Peter,  has  continued  since  the  Pope 
placed  his  pall  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  first 
English  Archbishop,  down  to  his  present 
venerable  successor.  And  when  Cranmer 
and  the  British  Church,  cast  out  the  doc- 
trinal errors  of  Rome,  which  had  been  forced 
upon  her  in  her  weakness,  and  retained  in 
her  ignorance,  they  did  not  invalidate  the 
Apostolical  Succession,  for  the  simple  rea- 
son they  could  not.    Cranmer,  once  a  Bish- 


31 


op,  (like  every  one  who  has  received  conse- 
cration) was  a/ways  a  Bishop.  The  Bishop 
of  Rome,  or  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania, 
can  give,  but  he  cannot  take  away.  The 
hands  of  a  Bishop  once  laid  upon  the  head, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  received  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  and  that  Bishop  may  issue 
his  bulls,  his  anathemas,  he  may  curse  and 
excoromunicate, — but  it  is  all  in  vain,  the 
act  is  done,  the  Apostolic  Succession  has 
gone  on,  and  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  an- 
gels, men,  or  devils,  to  take  away  the  sacred 
depositum. 

And  thus  from  St.  Peter,  through  the 
Romish  Succession,  as  from  St.  Paul, 
through  the  British  Succession,  the  Church 
in  England,  and  her  daughter  in  these 
United  States,  is  bound  to  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord  and  our  God. 

The  Romanist  asks  with  a  smile — who 
ordained  Cranmerl  And  the  Churchman  re- 
plies with  equal  good  humour,  who  ?  And 


32 


when  with  an  ominous  shake  of  his  head, 
our  brother  points  with  his  finger,  and  says, 
"  Rome !" — he  is  met  by  a  good  humoured 
Catholic  smile,  which  proclaims  that  the 
Churchman  has  no  objection  to  Rome's  old 
Orders,  though  he  has  to  Rome's  neio  doc- 
trines, and  feels  happy  in  having  the  Roman- 
ist's acknowledgment  of  the  Church's  Suc- 
cession from  St.  Peter,  as  well  as  the 
acknowledgment  of  British  Churchmen  of 
the  Church's  Succession  from  St.  Paul. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  DOUBLE  LINE  OF  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCES- 
SION, POSSESSED  BY  THE  HOLY  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH  IN  ENGLAND  AND  THE  UNITED 
STATES. 

Having  in  the  last  chapter  stated  one  or 
two  facts  connected  with  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  in  England  and  the  United  States, 
I  beg  of  my  readers  to  continue  their  atten- 
tion, whilst  presenting  a  few  of  the  testimo- 
nies of  the  learned  men  in  our  Mother 
Church,  to  the  subject  of  Apostolical  Suc- 
cession. 

Tlie  Protestant  Episcopal  CImrcli 
traces  back  lier^  miuistry  to  St.  PAUIj 
and  St.jPETER.; 

The  American  Churchman,  whose  own 
independent  studies,  may  have  led  him  to 
3 


34 


see  how  eminently  he  is  blessed,  in  being 
united  to  the  Church  of  the  living  God,  by 
Apostolical  Succession  through  two  chan- 
nels, will  never  refuse  to  receive  such  conjir- 
mation  of  the  truth,  as  comes  from  men  so 
eminently  versed  in  Ecclesiastical  antiqui- 
ties, as  those  herewith  quoted.  And  I 
would  venture  to  direct  to  ihis  double  channel 
of  Apostolical  Succession,  those  Church- 
men who  seem  to  think  more  lightly  than 
is  meet,  of  that  original  and  only  legitimate 
branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in 
England,  the  British  Churchy  specifically  so 
called. 

(1.)  Doctor  Stanlev,  of  St.  Asaph,  in 
his  able  exposure  of  Romish  errors,  uses  the 
following  language:  "we  have  a  clergy  as 
properly  and  truly  of  Christ's  sending,  as 
any  church  in  the  world;  against  whose 
ordination  and  mission  nothing  can  be  ob- 
jected ;  we  dfti'iving  the  succession  of  our 
bishops,  not  only  from  their  own  Augustine, 


35 


BUT  FROM  THE  BRITISH  BISHOPS  BEFORE  HIS 
TIME."* 

(2.)  Bishop  Burgess  of  St.  David's, 
who  has  most  satisfactorily  vindicated  the 
claims  of  "  Christ,  and  not  St.  Peter  to  be 
the  rock  of  the  Christian  Church,"  sets 
forth  the  connexion  of  the  present  with  the 
ancient  religion  of  Britain  in  the  following 
words :  "  a  religion  (that  of  the  present  holy 
Catholic  Church  in  England,)  endeared  to 
Britain  by  its  high  apostolical  antiquity, 
and  an  inheritance  of  almost  eighteen 
CENTURIES,  in  comparison  with  which  the 
Popery  of  Britain  established  for  a  few  cen- 
turies  after  the  Norman  conquest,  was  a  mo- 
dern usurpation,''^ -\ 

(3.)  Dr.  Pusey  of  Oxford,  in  his  letter 
to  the  Lord  Bishop,  gives  the  following  tes- 
timony, which  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  the 

*  Enchirdion  Theologicum,  p.  105. 
t  Church  Armd.  II.  349. 


36 


result  of  the  thoughtful  studies  of  a  most 
learned,  well  read  and  withal  gentle-church- 
man. 

"  The  Apostolical  succession  then  is  not 
an  abstract  argument  but  a  tangible  fact,  the 
value  of  which  any  plain  man  can  feel. 
Any  one  can  understand  that  our  Lord  pro- 
mised to  be  with  the  Apostles  and  with  their 
successors  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  nor  do 
any  other  even  claim  to  be  the  successors 

OF  THE  ORIGINAL  BlSHOPS  OF  OUR  ChURCH, 
WHO  WERE  ORDAINED  BY  ApOSTLES  OR  APOS- 

TOLic  MEN,  except  those  who  now  Jill  the  sees, 
the  Bishops  of  the  Anglo- Catholic  Church,''''* 
{or  the  present  English  Church.") 

(4.)  Doctor  Hook,  Chaplain  to  Queen 
Victoria,  adds  his  testimony  in  the  fol- 
lowing w^ords : 

"  The  present  Church  of  England  is  the 
old  Catholic  Church  of  England,  reformed 


*  Letter  p.  117. 


37 


in  the  reigns  of  Henry,  Edward,  and  Eliza- 
beth, of  certain  superstitious  errors,  it  is  the 
same  church  which  came  down  from  our  Bri- 
tish AND  Saxon  ancestors.'^''* 

Listen  again  to  this  noble  son  of  Eng- 
land's noble  Church,  and  remember  he  ap- 
peals to  Records  and  Documents ; — there  is 
no  fancy  or  imagination  about  this  : 

"  The  founders  or  planters  of  the  Church 
of  England,  both  Britons  and  Saxons, 
were  Bishops  ordained  by  other  Bishops, 
precisely  as  is  the  case  at  the  present  time; 
the  catalogue  has  been  carefully  and  provi- 
dentially preserved  from  the  beginning.  And 
the  Bishops  who  ordained  them  had  been 
ordained  by  other  Bishops,  and  go  back  to 
the  apostles  who  ordained  the  first  Bishops, 
being  themselves  ordained  by  Christ."]- 

(5.)  Ingram,  the  motto  of  whose  work 

*  "  Hear  the  Church,"  p.  14. 
t "  Hear  the  Church,"  pp.  15, 16, 


38 


shows  the  taste  of  the  man,  thus  witnesses 
to  the  present  subject.* 

"  From  the  time  of  Augustine  to  the  Re- 
formation, there  is  no  difficulty  in  tracing 
the  Episcopal  Succession,  not  only  through 
the  Anglo  Saxon  Churchy  but  also  through 

THE  NATIVE  BRITISH  ANdIrISH  CHURCHES."f 

(6.)  Palmer  in  his  "  Origines  Liturgi- 
cse,"  is  not  at  all  less  decided  in  his  testi- 
mony, and  to  those  who  know  his  thorough 
acquaintance  with  Ecclesiastical  History, 
the  following  will  be  perfectly  satisfactory  : 

"  The  ancient  British  Bishops^  who  sat  in 
the  councils  of  Aries  and  Nice,  in  the  4th 
century,  were  followed  by  a  long  line  of  suc- 
cessors, who  governed  dioceses  in  Britain ; 

*  "Id  verius  quod  prius,  id  prius  quod  et  ab  initio^ 
id  ab  initio  quod  ab  Apostolis."  That  is  the  truer 
which  is  first,  that  is  first  which  is  from  the  begin- 
ning, that  is  from  the  beginning  which  is  from  the 
Apostles. 

I  True  Char,  of  Ch.  Eng.  p.  57. 


39 


so  were  those  prelates  from  Ireland,  who  in 
the  seventh  century,  converted  a  great  por- 
tion of  the  pagan  invaders  of  Britain ;  and 
so  also  was  Augustine,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, who  was  sent  by  Gregory  of  Rome 
about  the  same  time,  and  who  preached  to 
another  portion  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  The 
Churches  deriving  their  m'igin  from  these 
THREE  SOURCES,  Were  governed  hy  prelates^ 
who  all filled  distinct  dioceses;  and  these  dioceses 
have  been  occupied  by  a  regular  series  of 
Bishops,  canonically  ordained,  from  the  be- 
ginning down  to  the  present  day.^^ 

Hear  again  this  true  Catholic: 

"  We  stand  on  the  ground  of  prescriptive 
and  immemorial  possession,  not  merely  from 
the  times  of  Patrick  and  Augustine,  but  from 

THOSE  more  remote  AGES,  WHEN  THE  BISH- 
OPS AND  PRIESTS  THAT  WERE  OUR  PREDECES- 
SORS ATTENDED  THE  COUNCILS  OF  ArLES  AND 

Nice,  when  Tertullian  and  Origenbore  wit- 


40 


ness  that  the  fame  of  our  Christianity  had 
extended  to  Africa  and  the  East." 

(7.)  I  will  only  quote  one  more  testimo- 
ny, but  it  is  a  testimony  which  will  do  good 
to  the  hearts  of  our  zealous,  (pity  they  force 
me  to  add  schismatical)  Romish  brethren  •* 
inasmuch  as  their  very  learned  and  generous 
Fathers,  met  in  solemn  conclave,  and  passed 
a  vote  of  thanks,  and  sent  a  letter  of  thanks, 
for  the  erudition  which  had  been  displayed 
by  the  following  Bishop,  in  his  defence  of 
the  doctrir\e  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 

Bishop  Bull  is  the  man  ;  and  by  way  of 
introducing  his  testimony  to  the  present  sub- 
ject, let  me  give,  for  the  benefit  of  both  Holy 
Catholics  and  Roman  Catholics,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Romish  Clergy  of  France,  with 
the  Bishop  of  Meaux  at  their  head.  I  quote 
the  words  of  the  Bishop  of  Meaux's  letter  to 
Robert  Nelson,  dated  St.  Germain  en  Laye, 
July  24,  1700. 

"  As  to  Dr.  Bull's  performance — it  is  ad- 


41 


mirable,  and  the  matter  he  treats  could  not 
be  explained  with  greater  learning  and 
greater  judgment.  This  is  what  I  desire 
you  would  be  pleased  to  acquaint  him  with, 
and,  at  the  same  iime,  with  the  unfeigned 
ongratuJatiom  of  all  the  clergy  of 
France,  assembled  in  this  place ^  for  the  ser- 
vice, &c.  &:c. 

What  think  you,  now,  does  this  Doctor  of 
"  great  learning  and  great  judgment"  say 
about  the  early  British  Church,  and  the  infu- 
sion of  Romanism  in  after  days  1  Let  him 
speak  for  himself. 

"  And  to  come  nearer  home,  it  is  affirmed 
by  some  learned  men  of  the  Roman  Church, 
that  our  Britain  received  the  Gospel  before 
Rome." 

"  Our  Church  of  Britain  was  never  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  for 
the  first  six  hundred  years :  this  being  the 
ancienV  privilege  of  the  British  Church,  we 
have  an  undoubted  right  of  exemption  from 


42 


the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  by 
the  ancient  Canons  : — we  did  indeed  yield 
ourselves  to  the  Roman  usurpation^  but  it 
was  because  we  could  not  help  it ;  we  were 
at  first  forced,  awed  and  affrighted  into  this 
submission : — indeed  we  have  very  great 
reason  to  resume  our  primitive  right  and 
privilege  of  exemption  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome." 

Now,  Churchmen,  these  are  testimonies 
not  to  be  laughed  down,  nor  to  be  'passed  by 
with  affected  contempt  by  apv.  '-pholar.  And 
what  I  pray  you,  is,  keep  int         ^ese  v» '  ■  - 
nesses   to  the  historical  tr?->  ^^o\ir 
Church's  origin  and  succession,  v.n'less''yor. 
can  find  better;  especially  remember  Bishop 
Bull,  and  if  your  erring  brother  of-Ronv 
should  ever  venture  to  bring  up  ^k'  obie 
tions  a  hundred  times  refuted,  and  strive 
wrest  your  birth  right  away,  why,  treat  hmi 
gently,  for  he  is  your  brother;  treat  him 
kindly,  for  the  sake  of  "  the  Bishop  of  Meaux 


43 


and  all  the  clerofy  of  France,"  who  met  toge- 
ther to  praise  the  learning  and  judgment  of 
Doctor  Bull :  But  give  him  right  plainly 
the  testimony  of  this  Doctor,  (in  common 
with  all  the  others,)  to  the  British  Church 
being  established  before  that  of  Rome :  to  its 
(as  well  as  the  Romish  Church,)  having 
brought  down  to  us,  through  the  Church  in 
England,  the  holy  and  life  sustaining  prin- 
ciple of  Apostolical  Succession.  Do  not  be 
talked  out  of  the  high  and  glorious  privi- 
leges which  ^-^long  to  you,  as  members  of 
<it)4t  Chr  inst  which  the  gates  of  hell 

sh"^^  vail. 

1  x'he  Church,  I  say,  which  as  American 
Ohristians  ought  to  be  as  dear  to  every 
^hurc'^man  as  that  country  itself.  For  as  I 
-^rite  ilte*:^  lines  the  merry  peals  of  old  Christ 
iirch  bells  linger  on  my  ear ;  they  have 
l)een  welcoming  the  birth  day  of  our  beloved 
Washington.*  And  George  Washington 
*  Written  on  the  22d  day  of  February. 


44 


was  a  Protestant  Episcopalian,  a  member  of 
the  holy  Catholic  Church  in  these  United 
States. 

Here  is  a  claim  which  the  Church  has  upon 
us  as  Americans  which  ought  not  to  be  forgot- 
ten. In  her  orgainzation,  she  corresponds 
most  happily  with  the  organization  of  our 
country.  Sprung  as  she  has  from  the  same 
source  whence  we  derive  our  national  origin, 
for  as  Churchmen  and  as  Americans  we  look 
back  to  old  England ;  Founded  as  the  Church 
was  by  the  same  hands  that  laid  the  comer- 
stone  of  our  Republic;  Boasting  as  she  does 
that  her  best  loved  Bishop  was  the  chaplain 
of  our  Congress;  that  the  leader  of  the 
American  army  was  a  communicant  at  her 
altar ; — these  things  considered,  we  do  well 
to  think  and  speak  of  them,  and  to  feel  an 
honourable  pride  both  in  the  thought  and 
speech. 

When,  then,  you  hear  the  members  of  the 
Romish  sect  boasting  of  their  Carroll  of 


45 


Carrollton,  hear  them  patiently,  for  a  right 
honourable  patriot  he  was,  and  does  honour 
to  the  name  of  Romanist  which  he  bore 
but  let  these  friends  of  ours,  be  instructed, 
that  to  the  Church  of  Lee,  and  Rutledge,  and 
Middleton,  and  Jay,  and  Hamilton,and  Madi- 
son, and  Marshall,  and  Morris,  of  Bishop 
White  and  George  Washington,  it  belongs 
to  claim  the  gratitude  of  this  American  peo- 
ple. 

Long,  then,  may  old  Christ  Church  bells 
ring  their  merry  chime,  to  welcome  the  birth 
day  of  George  Washington,  a  communicant 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  Old 
bells,  ye  have  the  right,  for  your  music  is 
the  music  of  ancient  days :  ye  can  chaunt 
the  natal  song  of  all  the  denominations  about 
you,  and  may  ye  remain  to  sound  the  glorious 
requiem,  which  shall  tell  of  Romish  and 
dissenting  brothers,  dead  to  their  violations 
of  the  Church's  unity,  and  bom  again  to 


46 

the  privileges  of  that  Apostolic  bravicii  of  the 
holy  Catholic  Church,  the  American  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  HOLV  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  IN  ENGLAND 
AND  THE  UNITED  STATES,  DISTINGUISHED 
FROM  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

There  are  some  farther  points  connected 
with  the  subject  which  the  last  chapter 
touched  on,  to  which  the  attention  of  Church- 
men ought  to  be  turned.  Without  farther 
preliminaries,  I  shall  attempt  to  point  them 
out. 

I. 

What  the  HOLY  Catholic  Church  is 
NOT,  and  what  the  ROMAN  Catholic 
Clxurch  IS. 

Inasmuch  as  the  subject  herewith  pre- 
sented, is  a  little  confused  by  our  Romish 
brethren,  let  us  look  into  the  matter,  with 
special  reference  to  them.  The  Holy  Catho- 


48 


lie  Church  is  not  any  one  branch  of  it; 
though  it  be  proper  to  speak  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  in  this  or  that  country, 
meaning  the  true  and  legitimate  branch  of 
it,  which  God  has  planted  in  said  country. 
Now,  this  seems  a  self-evident  truth,  inas- 
much as  a  part  cannot  be  equal  to  the  whole. 
But  self-evident  truths  are  passed  over 
by  some  persons,  so  that  it  will  not  do,  to 
take  any  thing  for  granted. 

The  Holy  Catholic  Church,  in  its  ex- 
tended meaning,  is  not  therefore  any  indivi- 
dual branch,  whether  it  be  the  Syrian  Catho- 
lic, Grecian  Catholic,  African  Catholic, 
Roman  Catholic,  English  Catholic,  or  Ame- 
rican Catholic.  It  is  just  as  absurd  to  talk 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  mean 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  if  you  were  to 
talk  of  the  world,  and  mean  the  city  of  Rome. 
In  Italy,  or  within  the  limits  of  the  ancient 
western  Patriarchate,  the  Romish  Church 
may  be  regarded  as  a  legitimate  though  im- 


49 


pure  branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 
But  in  England  and  these  United  States,  the 
Romish  Church  is  a  sed^  being  in  a  state  of 
Ecclesiastical  (as  well  as  Doctrinal)  Schism, 
with  that  branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  in  these  United  States,  which  is 
known  under  the  name  of  "  The  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church." 

H. 

Romanists  in  England  and  tbe  United 
States  are  SCHISMATICS. 

I  In  Italy,  the  Church  of  Rome,  having 
1  never  separated  from  an  older  Church,  is 

not  schismatical,  though  her  grievous  cor- 
I  ruptions  in  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship, 
I  show  how  far  from  Catholic  puritj'  she  has 

departed. 

But  in  England  and  the  United  States  the 
case  of  the  Romanists  is  materially  differ- 
ent.   They  are  not  only  corrupt  in  doctrine, 
discipline  and  worship,  but  are  Schismatical, 
4 


50 


having  separated  from  the  English  Church 
in  the  eleventh  year  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 
This  whole  matter  shall  be  given  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  learned  Mr.  Palmer. 

"  When  certain  individuals,  in  obedience 
to  the  exhortations  of  papal  emissaries,  or  to 
directions  of  Roman  Pontiffs,  went  out  and 
separated  themselves  from  the  Communion 
of  the  Catholic  Church  of  their  country, 
when  they  established  rival  altars,  a  rival 
priesthood,  and  endeavoured  to  withdraw 
the  faithful  from  obedience  to  their  legitimate 
pastors  ;  then  it  is  plain  that  such  men  were 
guilty  of  that  aggravated  sin  which  the  Se- 
cond (Ecumenical  Council  calls  heresy;  and 
that  they  were  altogether  cut  off  from  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  Such  was  the  conduct 
of  the  Romish  or  popish  party  in  England 
and  Ireland.  It  is  certain  that  during  the 
reigns  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  successors,  until 
the  eleventh  year  of  Queen  Elizabeth's 
reign,  there  were  not  two  separate  commu- 


51 


nions  and  worships.  All  the  people  were 
subject  to  the  same  pastors,  attended  the 
same  Churches,  and  received  the  same  sa- 
craments. It  was  only  about  the  year  1570 
that  the  popish  party,  at  the  instigation  of 
foreign  emissaries,  separated  itself  and  fell 
from  the  Catholic  Church  of  England. 

"  Schismatics  do  not  cease  to  be  so  by  a 
mere  change  of  country :  therefore  the  Pa- 
pists who  went  from  this  country  (Great 
Britain  and  Ireland)  to  establish  themselves 
in  the  United  States  of  North  America,  were 
schismatics  when  they  arrived  there;  and 
always  remaining  separated  from  that  branch 
of  the  Catholic  Apostolic  Church  which 
was  established  there,  they  only  perpetuated 
their  schism.  In  fine,  when  America  re- 
ceived Bishops  from  our  Churches,  the 
schismatics  constituted  a  rival  Episcopacy,* 

*  The  Church  of  the  United  States  received  the 
Episcopacy  from  Scotland  in  1784,  and  from  England 
in  1787. 


52 


and  so  remain  to  this  day  separated  from 
the  true  Church/' 

III. 

What  the  BRITISH  CHURCH  is. 

It  is  well  to  attend  to  even  the  different 
names  by  which  the  same  things  are  called. 
By  the  British  Church  is  meant,  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  the  legitimate  and  canon- 
ical branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in 
the  ancient  "  Western  Islands,"  or  England, 
Scotland  and  Ireland.  The  term  "  British 
Church,"  is  also  used  to  denote  specially 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England, 
which  existed  from  the  1st  to  the  7th  cen- 
tury, without  any  mixture  of  Romanism. 
The  terms  "  Anglo-Saxon,"  "  Anglo-Ro- 
man" and  "English  Church,"  are  only 
other  names  for  the  British  Church  under 

The  Roman  Pontifl" having  erected  the  rival  Bish- 
opric of  Ballimore,  its  Hrst  Bishop  was  consecrated  in 
1790,  and  headed  the  Ilomiin  schism  in  America. 


53 


different  phases,  as  shall  be  shown  in  the 
following  section. 

IV. 

The  various  NAMES  by  Tvliichi  tlie  Holy 
Catholic  Cliiircli  in  England  and  the 
United  States  has  been  known. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance,  in  order  to 
clearness  of  apprehension,  to  bear  in  mind  the 
truth  that  names  do  not  alter  things.  And  yet 
it  has  been  through  a  forgetfulness  or  inatten- 
tion to  this  one  point,  as  much  as  any  thing 
else,  that  there  are  indistinct  notions  of 
the  existence  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
in  Great  Britain. 

The  Church  was  established  in  Britain 
by  St.  Paul  and  Apostolic  men,  and  it  has 
existed  there  since  that  time  down  to  the 
present  hour ;  and  from  that  Church  we  are 
descended.  It  is  very  true,  that  owing  to 
circumstances  her  name  has  changed,  but 
the  Church  has  not  changed.  Now,  in  look- 


54 


ing  at  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England, 
(and  in  the  United  States,)  with  respect  to 
the  gradual  encroachments  of  the  Romish 
Church,  we  may  say,  that  from  the  time  of 
St.  Paul  down  to  the  present  day,  the  Church 
has  assumed  five  names. 

(1.)  From  the  1st  to  the  7th  century,  she 
may  be  called  "  The  British  Church,"  and 
was  without  the  shadow  of  Romish  influ- 
ence. 

(2.)  From  the  7th  to  the  11th  century, 
she  may  be  called  "The  Anglo-Saxon 
Church."  This  was  not  a  new  Church, 
but  the  British  Church,  with  a  comparative- 
ly mild  infusion  of  Romanism. 

(3.)  From  the  Uth  to  the  16th  century, 
she  may  be  called  "The  Anglo-Roman 
Church."  This  was  the  same  Holy  Catho- 
lic British  Church,  with  a  virulent  infusion 
of  Romanism. 

(4.)  From  the  16th  to  the  19th  century, 
she  may  be  called  "  The  English  Church," 


55 


which,  like  each  of  the  other  names,  does 
not  indicate  a  new  Church,  but  only  a  new 
state,  viz.  the  state  in  which  ancient  British 
privileges  had  been  resumed,  by  a  thorough 
expulsion  of  Romanism  in  any  form,  mild 
or  virulent. 

(5.)  In  the  United  States,  the  same  Holy 
Catholic  Church  goes  by  the  name  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

From  Apostolic  times,  therefore,  down  to 
this  day,  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  Eng- 
land has  existed,  at  first  pure,  then  infected, 
then  thoroughly  diseased,  and  then  healed, 
and  restored  to  her  primitive  purity. 

Now  there  are  some,  especially  among 
our  Romish  brethren,  who  carmot  see  all 
this,  but  think  that  there  must  be  somewhat 
of  magic^  in  preserving  continuity  amid  such 
strange  vicissitudes.  But  really,  if  they  can 
believe  that  the  present  Romish  Church,  is 
the  same  as  that  which  St.  Peter  founded ; 
or  their  present  faith,  that  which  St.  Paul 


56 


preached  when  he  "  dwelt  at  Rome  in  his 
own  hired  house,"  they  ought  not  to  pre- 
tend any  difficulty  in  this  matter.* 

It  is  just  as  easy  for  us  to  see  how  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England,  should 
have  passed  through  the  several  stages  of 
British,  Anglo-Saxon,  Anglo-Roman,  and 
English,  and  yet  pieserveher  Holy  Catholic 
identity,  as  it  is  for  us  to  see  how  the  same 
human  being  can  pass  through  the  several 
stages  of  infancy,  childhood,  youth,  matu- 
rity, and  old  age ;  or  again,  how  the  same 
man  can  be  well  at  one  time,  indisposed  at 
a  second,  deadly  sick  at  a  third,  and  quite 
restored  at  a  fourth  time. 

Bearing  this  truth  in  mind,  you  will  see 
how  ridiculous  is  the  lament  of  Italian 

*  For  an  admirable  exposure  of  the  difterence  be- 
tween the  Catholic  and  Romish  faith,  see  a  little 
treatise  entitled  "  Roman  Fallacies  and  Catholic 
Truths,"  published  by  the  New  York  Tract  Society, 
as  Tract  No.  163. 


57 


Churchmen  for  their  possessions  in  England, 
as  will  be  noticed  in  the  next  section. 

V. 

The  Lament  of  tlie  ROMISH  CHURCH, 
for  lier  possessions  in  Euglaud. 

You  often  hear  the  adherents  of  the  Ita- 
lian Church,  talking  of  the  injustice  of 
the  Reformation  in  taking  away  their  Cathe- 
drals, their  endowments,  etc.  etc.,  so  that 
one  who  listens  to  them  would  suppose 
that  the  Romanists  had  both  civil  and 
Ecclesiastical  possession  of  Great  Bri- 
tain since  Apostolic  days.  No,  say  they, 
but  we  ought  to  have  possession  since  Aii- 
gustin's  days.  Just  as  if  the  Saxon  inva- 
ders, (a  small  part  of  whom  Augustin 
preached  to,)  having  eaten  up  bodily  the 
poor  Britons,  and  swallowed  the  ground, 
and  timber,  and  stone,  Augustin  had  brought 
an  importation  of  Italian  soil,  and  timber, 
and  stone,  and  men,  to  reconstruct  and  esta- 


58 


blish  the  Ocean  Isles.  Their  possessions  in 
England!  Why,  who  but  English  Churchmen 
gave  the  church  endowments,  and  in  what  but 
the  sweat  of  English  brows  were  the  old  Ca- 
thedrals of  our  mother  land  reared  ?  From 
what  but  English  quarries  were  the  stones 
dug,  and  whence  but  from  her  ancient 
forests  were  the  beams  and  rafters  of  the 
noble  minsters  hewn  1  It  is  true,  that  often- 
times Italians  stood  as  taskmasters  over 
Englishmen,  and  even  Englishmen  them- 
selves, through  ignorance,  were  ordained  to 
the  same  office,  deceived  as  they  were  into 
the  belief  that  the  Roman  usurper  had  the 
right  to  do  this  thing.  But  the  Holy  Ca- 
tholic Church  in  England,  even  with  its 
worst  infusion  of  Romanism,  was  the  Eng- 
lish Church  Deformed,  just  as  now  the 
Church  in  England  is  the  English  Church 
Reformed. 

And  for  Italian,  or  Romish  Churchmen, 
to  lament  over  the  loss  of  their  endowments 


59 


in  Great  Britain,  is  as  ludicrous  as  if  the 
Pope  were  to  issue  a  Bull  against  the  sun 
I    shining,  or  the  rain  falling  upon  our  Mother 
!    land,  and  then  with  his  followers,  set  up  a 
lugubrious  lamentation  for  his  failure. 

If  advice  were  of  use,  we  should  tell  our 
Romish  brethren,  to  dry  their  tears,  and  put 
jj  a  good  face  on  the  loss  of  their  endowments, 
"  Cathedrals,  etc.,  because,  if  the  noble  Ca- 
thedral was  built  through  their  influence, 
why,  it  was  built  on  English  soil,  from  Eng- 
lish quanies,  and  by  English  men,  and  their 
influence  or  superintendence,  is  only  the 
Ground  Rent  which  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  in  England,  charged  her  Sister  in 
Italy,  for  her  long  and  intrusive  influence  in 
England. 

It  was  the  triumph  of  Holy  Catholic  prin- 
ciple over  English  indignation,  when  our 
Mother  Church  expelled  in  so  kind  and  legal 
a  way,  the  intruding  and  blighting  influence 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE 
HOLY  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  IN  PRIMITIVE 
TIMES,  AND  THE  USURPATION  OF  THE  RO- 
MAN BRANCH. 

Having  now  given  an  outline  of  the  more 
important  facts  tending  to  show  the  true 
character  of  the  English  and  American 
branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  I  proceed 
to  a  more  general  but  equally  important  mat- 
ter, viz.  the  organization  of  the  Church  Ca- 
tholic in  primitive  days,  and  the  great  cause 
of  division  and  trouble  which  the  Roman 
branch  has  created. 


61 


I. 

A  GKNERAJL.  Sketcli  of  Early  Cliurcli 
Arrangements. 

The  Divine  organization  of  the  Ministry, 
as  "is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  read- 
ing Holy  Scriptures  and  ancient  authors,"  is 
Episcopal,  according  to  the  three  orders, 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons.  The  first 
order  only  having  the  right  or  the  power  to 
ordain,  and  all  Bishops  being  equal  in  spiri- 
tual supremacy.  But  in  the  process  of  time, 
and  for  the  sake  of  aonvenieme^  the  Bishops 
of  a  given  Province,  permitted  the  Bishop  of 
the  chief  city  to  have  priority  in  various 
matters,  and  called  him  Metropolitan  or 
Archbishop.  For  the  same  reason,  the  vari- 
ous Metropolitans  or  Primates  of  the  differ- 
ent Provinces,  permitted  one  to  be  first 
among  ihem^  (just  as  each  Metropolitan  was 
first  apiong  his  Bishops,)  and  called  him 
Patriarch. 


62 


But  be  it  remembered,  that  Patriarchs  or 
Metropolitans,  were — in  original  spiritual 
power — nothing  more  than  Bishops.  It  did 
not  make  a  man  more  than  a  Bishop,  in  so 
far  as  original  spiritual  supremacy  was  con- 
cerned, for  his  brother  Bishops  to  allow  him 
priority  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  and  give 
him  the  name  of  Metropolitan ;  nor  again, 
when  Metropolitans  were  multiplied,  to  se- 
lect one  of  their  number,  and  call  him  Pa- 
triarch. It  is  well  not  to  be  misled  by 
names :  neither  to  be  confused  as  to  original 
and  essential  equality  among  Bishops,  be- 
cause of  certain  inequalities  in  minor  matters, 
adopted  for  the  sake  of  convenience. 

Patriarch,  Primate,  Metropolitan,  Arch- 
bishop, Pope  and  Cardinal,  are  only  other 
names  for  that  plain  thing  "  Bishop."  There 
is  not  a  jot  more  of  original,  essential,  spi- 
ritual supremacy  in  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, the  Pope  of  Rome,  or  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  than  there  is  in  that 


63 


venerable  man,  who  justly  bears  the  plain 
but  honoured  title  of  Bishop  of  Pennsylva- 
nia. 

In  so  far  as  essential  spiritual  power  goes, 
there  is  no  manner  of  difference ;  in  so  far  as 
Ecclesiastical  arrangement  founded  on  con- 
venience goes,  there  is  a  difference. 

II. 

A  more  PARTICULAR  gketch  of  tlic 
MATURE  ariaugemeuts  of  tlie  Early 
Cliurcli. 

It  was  a  convenience,  and  perhaps  a  pride, 
in  early  times,  to  have  the  polity  of  the 
Church  modeled,  to  a  very  great  extent,  after 
the  arrangements  of  the  civil  government. 
Keeping  this  fact  in  view,  this  whole  matter 
will  become  comparatively  clear. 

(1.)  The  most  mature  form  into  which  the 
government  of  the  Roman  Empire  was  cast, 
in  the  time  of  Constantine,  was  into  Praefec- 
tures,  Dioceses,  and  Provinces.  There  were 


64 


four  Praefectures,  thirteen  Dioceses,  and  one 
hundred  and  eighteen  Provinces.  Each  Prae- 
fecture  contained  several  Dioceses ;  each 
Diocese  several  Provinces  ;  each  Province  a 
Metropolis,  and  cities  and  towns. 

(2.)  Remembering  this  gradation  of  Prae- 
fecture.  Diocese,  Province,  Metropolis,  Ci- 
ties and  towns ;  it  will  give  an  idea,  suffi- 
ciently accurate,  if  we  regard  a  Patriarch  as 
answering  to  the  Praefed  who  has  jurisdic- 
tion over  a  Praefecture;  a  Primate  as  an- 
swering to  the  Exarch  who  had  jurisdiction 
over  a  Diocese ;  a  Metropolitan  as  answering 
to  a  Proconsul  who  has  jurisdiction  over  a 
Province ;  a  Bishop  as  answering  to  the 
Judge  who  had  jurisdiction  over  the  City 
and  its  adjoining  towns.  There  were,  how- 
ever many  Bishops  who  had  no  Metropoli- 
tans, and  were  hence  called  independent." 

Among  the  most  important  of  those  Bish- 
ops, who  according  to  the  Conventional 
arrangement  possessed  a  priority  of  order, 


65 


and  bore  the  name  of  Patriarchs,  were  the 
Patriarchs  of  Rome,  Constantinople,  Alexan- 
dria, Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.* 

III. 

The  limits  of  the  Patriarchates  of  COX- 
STANTlNOPIiE,  AliEXANDRIA,  AN- 
TIOCH, and  JERUSALEM. 

(1.)  The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
(who  was  in  essential  spiritual  power  only  a 
Bishop^)  had  a  primacy  of  order,  over  the 
three  Dioceses  of  Asiana,  Pontica  and 
Thrace,  containing  twenty- five  provinces, 

(2.)  The  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  (a 
mere  Bishop^)  had  a  like  primacy  over  Egypt, 

♦  For  more  specific  information,  reference  may  be 
had  to 

Bingham  Antiq.  b.  ix. 
Basnage  Hist,  de  I'Eglise,  tome  1. 
Mosheim's  Ecc.  Hist.  I.  282. 
Ludov.  Thomas's  Discip.  Ecc.  Vet. 
Pagi  Critica  in  Barronii  Annal.  I.  29. 
Cave's  Essay  on  Anc.  Ch.  Gov. 

5 


66 


Libya  and  Pentapolis,  which  embraced  the 
Civil  Diocese  of  Egypt  and  extended  into 
Abyssinia. 

(3.)  The  Patriarch  of  Antioch  (a  mere 
Bishop,)  had  a  like  primacy  over  one  por- 
tion of  the  Civil  Diocese  of  the  East:  the 
number  of  Metropolitans,  &c.  under  him  is 
too  numerous  to  be  detailed. 

(4.)  The  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  (a  mere 
Bishop,)  had  a  like  primacy  over  the  other 
portion  of  the  Eastern  Diocese,  embracing 
the  three  Palestines,  to  Mount  Sinai  and  the 
borders  of  the  East. 

IV. 

The  limit  of  tlie  PATRIARCH  or  POPE 
of  ROME'S  jiirisdiction. 

We  have  reserved  the  limits  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome's  jurisdiction  for  a  notice  in  the  last 
place,  because  this  bishop  has  forgot  the  mo- 
desty of  a  bishop  ;  transgressed  ancient 
canons  by  gradually  usurping  authority 
over  independent  Metropolitans  and  their 


67 


churches  ;  and  violated  the  intention  of 
Christ  and  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  by  the  novel  claim  of  the  Papacy. 

Now  so  far  was  the  Bishop  of  Rome's  ju- 
risdiction from  extending  over  the  whole 
world,  or  the  western  provinces,  that  it  did 
not  extend  to  the  whole  of  Italy  and  Sicily. 

His  jurisdiction  was  over  Campania, 
Tuscia,  Umbria,  Scilia,  Apulia,  Calabria, 
Lucania,  Samnium,  Sardinia,  Corsica,  Va- 
leria. 

The  Bishop  (called  Patriarch  or  Pope)  of 
Rome  had  no  authority  even  over  his  near 
neighbour  the  Bishop  (or  Metropolitan)  of 
Milan.  The  proofs  of  this  are  so  plain,  that 
the  learned  Romanists  of  other  days  fairly 
give  it  up.* 

The  same  independence  was  possessed 
and  exercised  by  the  Church  of  Aquileia; 
and  Gregory  the  Great  felt  the  influence  of 

*  De  Marca,  with  facts  given  by  Cave,  p.  206-9. 


68 


the  indignant  and  independent  Church  of 
Aquileia. 

And  so  again,  any  student  of  history  may 
discover  the  modest  limits,  (modest  in  com- 
parison with  his  after  innovations  and  usur- 
pations,) of  the  Bishop  of  Rome's  jurisdic- 
tion, in  the  case  of  the  independent  Church 
of  Ravenna. 

But  let  us  pass  on  in  another  section,  to 
another  important  point. 

V. 

How  far  the  Bisliop  or  Pope  of  Rome's 
jurisdiction  DID  JVOT  extend. 

It  may  seem  almost  needless  to  say  any 
thing  farther  on  this  point,  after  having  seen 
that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  no  jurisdiction 
over  even  his  next  door  neighbour.  But  we 
make  a  distinct  section,  in  order  to  recapitu- 
late the  principle  of  this  whole  matter,  and 
to  bring  out  the  independence  of  one  church 
in  particular. 


69 


This  primacy  of  honour,  then,  or  ecclesi- 
astical arrangement,  whereby  one  Bishop 
was  suffered  to  have  a  convenient  priority 
among  his  equals^  gave  not  one  jot  of  essen- 
tial spiritual  supremacy  to  the  Bishop,  Pa- 
triarch, or  Pope  of  Rome,  over  and  above 
I    that  which  every  Bishop,  Patriarch  or  Pope, 
j    (for  this  formidable  name  Pope  is  quite  a 
i   harmless  and  common  title,)  possessed. 

All  the  Councils  which  have  ever  con- 
vened in  the  Universal  Church  of  God, 
could  not  give  that  which  Jesus  Christ  alone 
can  give,  viz: — an  increase  of  original,  es- 
^seniial,  spiritual  power. 

The  power  which  Christ  c?ic?  give,  he  gave 
to  a// his  Apostles,  and  hence  to  all  their  suc- 
cessors, the  Bishops.  That  power  they 
always  possessed,  they  now  possess,  and 
always  will  possess.  Any  difference  in  pri- 

Iority,  is  only  a  difference  of  honor,  or  re- 
spect, no  matter  how  far  it  extends,  or  whe- 
ther arising  from  conventional  agreement, 


70 


or  claimed  by  usurpation,  and  maintained 
by  fraud  and  force. 

Now  this  primacy  or  priority  of  honor, 
which  his  brother  bishops  condescended  to 
grant  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  (call  him  Me- 
tropolitan, Primate,  Patriarch,  or  Pope,  as 
you  please,)  was  just  such  a  priority  as  was 
possessed  by  the  Bishops  or  Patriarchs  of 
Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem ;  and  did  not  extend,  of  course, 
to  any  part  of  the  Eastern  Church,  nor  to 
Africa ;  not  even  to  the  whole  of  Italy,  nor 
to  fi!7iy  part  of  Spain,  France,  Britain,  or 
Ireland.  These  churches  had  either  their 
own  Patriarchs,  or  their  independent  Metro- 
politans or  Bishops, 

Hence  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  Eng- 
land, Scotland  and  Ireland,  in  other  words 
the  British  Church,  was  entirely  indepen- 
dent of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  even  as  it  re- 
gards the  conventional  arrangement  of  patri- 
archal jurisdiction.  Love,  respect,  and  honor 


71 


for  Rome,  the  sister  churches  always  paid, 
and  ancient  Rome  in  return  always  repaid 
this  Catholic  feeling.  And  when  Romanists 
pretend  to  quote  as  authorities  for  an  admis- 
sion of  the  "  Pope's  Supremacy,"  the  high 
expressions  of  respect  from  certain  churches, 
the  visits  paid  to  Rome  by  their  members, 
and  much  more  of  this  kind  of  evidence, 
their  logic  is  about  as  bad  as  their  historical 
knowledge.*  But  these,  and  some  kindred 
points  of  interest  will  be  made  clearer  here- 
after. For,  fellow  Churchmen,  it  becomes 
somewhat  a  matter  of  gratitude  to  repay  the 
labors  of  our  good  Romish  brethren,  who 
have  investigated  (pity  so  inaccurately  and 
unsatisfactorily)  the  origin  of  our  bishops 
and  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  whose  mem- 
bers we  are,  by  investigating  the  origin  of 
their  Bishops,  who,  under  the  name  of 
Popes,  liave  gradually  invaded  the  indepen- 

*  Consult  3  Cau.  Counc.  Constant:  9  and  28  can. 
Counc.  Chalced:  36  can.  Counc.  in  Trullo. 


72 


dence  of  sister  churches,  till  they  have  rent 
the  Universal  Church  of  God  with  grievous 
wounds;  and  despite  of  rebukes,  specially 
that  of  our  Mother  Church  of  England,  still 
continue  to  disturb  the  peace  of  Christen- 
dom, and  give  cause  to  the  enemies  of  the 
faith  to  blaspheme. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  HOLY  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 
DISTURBED  BY  THE  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  AND 
NOVEL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  POPe's  SUPRE- 
MACY. 

The  grand  and  essential  doctrine  among 
the  novelties*  held  by  the  Romish  dissen- 
ters, one,  too,  which  is  the  chief  cause  of 
their  schism,  is  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 
A  doctrine,  however,  which  is  easy  of  settle- 
ment, and  which  has  been  most  triumphantly 
refuted  on  the  ground  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
antiquity.  If  any  of  my  readers  would  see  this 

*  For  an  excellent  and  brief  exposure  of  the  novel- 
ties of  Romanism,  see  a  Sermon  by  Dr.  W.  F.  Hook, 
entitled  "The  Novelties  of  Romanism,  or  Popery 
refuted  by  Tradition."   New  York  ed.  1843. 


74 


unrighteous  novelty  completely  disposed  of, 
let  them  study  "  Barrow  on  the  Pope's  Su- 
premacy," a  book  unanswered  and  unan- 
swerable. 

Now,  fellow  Churchmen,  you  often  hear 
yourselves  called  schismatics  and  heretics, 
and  your  Church,  which  apostles  and  mar- 
tyrs planted,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  Corner  Stone,  branded  as  a  sect, 
and  this  by  a  portion  of  your  erring  brethren, 
who  themselves  are  the  cause  of  all  the  trou- 
ble, who  themselves  have  violated  the  unity 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  by  the  intro- 
duction of  doctrines  and  practices  repugnant 
to  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  brought 
down  to  us  by  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  the 
universal  Church. 

It  becomes  us,  then,  to  confirm  ourselves 
in  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints," 
by  examining  the  novel  and  unholy  addi- 
tions to  that  faith  which  the  Romish  sect  has 
made,  especially  that  great  source  of  their 
schism,  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 


75 


We  are  forced  to  make  this  examination 
by  way  of  self-defence^  because  they  con- 
stantly obtrude  this  novelty  upon  us,  and 
deny  salvation  to  such  as  do  not  hold  it. 
This  last  assertion  shall  be  the  first  subject 
for  proof. 

I. 

A  O  SALVATION  to  sncli  as  reject  tlie 
"  Pope's  Supremacy." 

We  are  perfectly  aware  how  strange  this 
doctrine  may  appear  to  many  modern  Ro- 
manists, especially  those  here  in  the  United 
States.  But  modern  Romanists  in  the  United 
States  are  far  more  Protesiant  than  their  an- 
cestors, and  if  they  feel  ashamed  of  the  doc- 
trines of  their  Church,  as  given  by  their  old 
and  reputable  doctors,  that  is  their  own  busi- 
ness. For  myself,  I  hold  such  learned  Ro- 
manists as  shall  be  quoted  in  this  and  the 
following  section,  to  be  better  expounders  of 
the  doctrines  of  their  iifallihle  Church,  than 
any  living  Romanist. — "  There  were  giants 


76 


in  those  days^  Let  us  see  now  what  these 
ancient  true  Romanists  say  as  to  the  salva- 
tion of  such  as  reject  the  Pope's  supremacy. 

Be.llarmine*  says,  "  No  man  can,  though 
he  would,  be  subject  to  Christ,  and  commu- 
nicate with  the  Celestial  Church,  that  is  not 
subject  to  the  Pope.'^'' 

Fisher\  says,  "  One  fundamental  error  of 
the  Protestants  is  their  denying  the  primacy 
of  St.  Peter  and  his  successors,  the  founda- 
tion which  Christ  laid  of  his  Church,  neces- 
sary for  the  perpetual  government  of  it," 
and  "  He  that  forsakes  the  Church,  puts 
himself  into  a  dead  and  damnable  state,  and 
may  have  all  things  except  salvation  and 
eternal  life." 

Leo  X.X  says,  "It  is  of  necessity  to  sal- 
vation that  all  the  faithful  of  Christ  be  sub- 
ject to  the  Pope  of  Rome." 

*  De  Eccles.  1.  3,  c.  5. 
t  Ans.  to  K.  James  I. 
1 17  Lateran.  Alvy  Prag.  Sarict.  Bull. 


77 


Pius  II.*  approves  of  the  following  doc- 
trine :  "  He  cannot  be  saved  that  holdeth  not 
the  unity  of  the  Holy  Church  of  Rome;  and 
all  those  virtues  are  maimed  to  him  that  re- 
fuseth  to  obey  the  Pope  of  Rome,  though 
he  lie  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  and  fast  and 
pray  both  day  and  night,  and  seem  in  all 
other  things  to  fulfil  the  law  of  God." 

Rodericus]  says,  "  None  are  subject  to 
Christ  that  are  not  subject  to  his  Vicar,  (the 
Pope  of  Rome,") 

Here,  fellow  Churchmen,  you  have  some 
of  the  Popes  and  Doctors  of  the  Romish 
Church  expounding  this  matter,  and  if  any 
farther  authority  be  needed,  you  have  it  in 
the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  which  modern 
Romanists  ought  to  maintain  without  fear, 
and  without  attempting  to  abate  its  force. 
One  of  the  articles  of  this  creed  is  the  fol- 
lowing : 

*  Bull  Retract  in  Binius,  vol.  4,  p.  514. 
i  Roderic  liter,  p.  323. 


78 


"  1  acknowledge  the  Holy  Catholic,  Apos- 
tolic, Roman  Church  for  the  Mother  and 
Mistress  of  all  Churches ;  and  /  promise 
true  obedience  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  succes- 
sor to  St.  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and 
Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Now,  the  close  of  this  modern  creed  has 
this  expression :  "  I — sincerely  hold  this  true 
Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  man  canbe 
saved.''''  Wherefore,  "  no  man  can  be  saved" 
who  does  not,  among  other  pernicious  novel- 
ties, "  promise  true  obedience  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,"  as  "  Successor  to  St.  Peter, 
Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  Vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

II. 

The  OLD  and  COMPLETE  meaning  of 
tlie  "  Pope's  Supremacy. 

On  this  point,  though  it  be  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  Romanism,  the  united 
Church  is  very  much  divided.    But  the 


79 


strongest  interpretation  of  the  Pope's  su- 
premacy ought  to  please  churchmen  the  best, 
it  is  definite,  distinct,  untrammeled  with  lim- 
itations. If  modern  Romanists  differ  from 
the  following  authorities,  why,  as  these  au- 
thorities are  taken  from  their  own  infallible 
Church,  they  must  settle  the  matter  among 
themselves. 

Look,  now,  at  a  few  Romish  authorities 
as  to  the  full  power  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Pope's  su- 
premacy." 

Bellarmine  says,  "  It  is  held  by  many 
(such  as  Angus,  Triumphus,  Alvarus,  Pa- 
normitan,  &c.)  that  the  Pope  halh^  by  divine 
rights  a  most  full  power  over  the  whole  world, 
both  Ecclesiastical  AND  Civil. 

Cornelius  31ussus*  says,  "I  would  give 
greater  credit  to  one  Pope,  in  those  things 
which  teach  the  mysteries  of  faith,  than  to 

*  In  Rom.  XIV.  This  man  was  promoted  to  a 
Bishopric  by  Paul  III. 


80 


a  thousand  Hieroms,  Austins,  Gregories,  to 
say  nothing  of  Richards,  Scotuses,  Szc.^for 
1  believe  and  know  that  the  Pope  cannot  err 
in  matters  of  faith. 

Mosconius*  says,  the  Pope  can  dispense, 
above  law  and  against  law  and  right,^^ 
"  for  the  Pope's  tribunal  and  God's  tribunal 
is  but  one ;  and,  therefore,  every  reasonable 
creature  is  subject  to  the  Pope's  empire." 
^  Henry, -\  the  master  of  the  Roman  Palace, 
says,  "  The  Pope  can  change  the  Gospel,  and 
according  to  place  and  time  give  it  another 
sense,  insomuch  that  if  any  man  should  not 
believe  Christ  to  be  true  God  and  man,  if 
the  Pope  thought  so  too,  he  should  not  be 
damned."/' 

Bellarmine  (quoted  above)  also  says,  "  If 
the  Pope  should  err  by  commanding  sin,  or 

*  Lib.  I.  de  Sum.  Pontif.  vide  etiamJacobum  de 
Terano,  et  Ravis  de  Concil  de  Trent. 

t  Ad  Legates  Bohemicos  Sub.  felice  Papa,  A.  D. 
1447. 


81 


forbidding  virtues,  yet  the  Church  is  bound 
to  believe  that  the  vices  are  good  and  the 
virtues  evil,  unless  she  would  sin  against 
her  own  conscience."* 

Cassarueusj  says,  The  Pope  hath  power 
in  all  things,  through  all  things,  and  over  all 
things.^'  "  The  sublimity  and  immensit}' 
of  the  Supreme  Bishop  is  so  great  that  no 
mortal  man  can  express  it,  no  man  can 
think  it." 

And  if  any  be  not  satisfied  with  this  view 
of  the  Pope's  supremacy  of  power,  he  may 
add  the  testimony  of  divers  learned  Romish 
doctors,  who  directly  assert  and  maintain 
that  the  Pope  can  not  only  make  new  creeds, 
but  new  articles  of  faith ;  that  he  can  make 
that  of  necessity  to  be  believed  which  be- 
fore was  never  necessarj' ;  that  the  C  anon 
law  is  the  Divine  law ;  that  whatever  law 
the  Pope  promulges,  God,  whose  vicar  he 

*De  Rom.  Pont.  1.  4,  c.  5. 
t  In  Tayl.  Diss.  p.  133. 

6 


82 


is,  is  understood  to  be  the*  promulger ;  and 
thai  in  his  arbitration  religion  does  consist.* 
Here  is  something  like  a  fearless  exposi- 
tion of  that  novelty  in  the  Church  of  Christ, 
the  Pope's  supremacy ;  but  take  any  expo- 
sition of  the  doctrine  which  even  the  most 
timid  Romanist  will  give,  and  the  novelty  of 
this  schismatical  doctrine  may  still  be  proved. 
But,  Churchmen,  I  pray  you  see  what  man- 
ner of  use  is  the  pretended  infallihility  of 
those  who  dare  to  brand  you  as  violators  of 
the  unity  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  If 
the  authorities  above  quoted  be  rejected  by 
modern  Romanists,  then  their  infallibility  is 
no  better  than  our  own.  The  fact  is,  that 
there  is  afar  greater  want  of  unity,  far  more 
decisive  evidence  oi fallibility  in  the  Romish 

*  Turrecremata  Sum.  de  Eccl.  1.  2,  c.  203. 
Augus.  Triumph  de  Anac.  q.  59,  art.  1,  2. 
Peirus  de  Ancorano.    In  Cap.  Cum.  Chris,  de 
Hffiret.  n.  2. 

Hostinensis  Super  2.  Decret.  de  Jurej.  n.  1,  &c. 


83 


Church  than  you  can  find  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church. 

There  is  scarcely  one  single  doctrine  of 
*heir  Church  on  which  you  cannot  quote 
conflicting  opinions ;  conflicts  not  only  be- 
tween one  private  learned  man  and  an- 
other, but  between  Pope  and  Pope ;  council 
and  council ;  nay,  even  pope  and  council 
against  pope  and  council. 

When  then  they  talk  to  you  of  the  fal- 
lihility  of  your  Church,  and  point  to  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  as  proof,  you  may  and 
ought  to  return  the  compliment,  and  give 
twice  as  strong  proof  of  their  fallibility.  If 
they  change  their  ground,  and  say  that  their 
articles  of  faith,  their  standards,  never  con- 
flict, they  never  change,  then  you  may  rest 
contented ;  because  with  far  more  truth  may 
you  affirm  that  your  creed  has  never  chang- 
ed, your  standards  do  not  conflict,  in  other 
words,  that  your  Church  is  infallible. 

Your  Roman  Catholic  brother  is  not  half 


84 


so  certain  of  his  faith  as  you  are  of  yours. 
For  if  he  says  that  his  Church  is  infallible, 
grant  him  that  it  is  so;  and  then  let  him 
tell  you  if  the  Church  being-  infallible  makes 
this  or  that  particular  clergyman  of  the 
Church  infallible  when  expounding  the  doc- 
trines of  his  Church  1  If  so,  how  comes  it 
that  different  clergymen  in  the  Romish 
Church  hold  different  expositions  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy,  the  cardinal  doctrine  of 
Romanism  %  If  it  is  replies .  there  is  no  dif- 
ference of  opinion,  then  the  doctrine  above 
given  by  Bellarmine,  Fisher,  Leo  X.,  Pius 
II.,  Rodericus,  Pius  IV.,  Mosconius,  Hen- 
ry, Cassenaeus,  &c.,  must  be  the  true  and 
only'doctrine.  One  point  will  then  be  clearly 
settled,  viz.:  What  is  the  Pope's  supre- 
macy ? 

We  reserve  for  future  chapters,  the  refu- 
tation of  all  Scriptural  arguments  attempted 
to  be  offered  for  this  novelty  which  has  so 
marred  the  unity  of  the  Holy  Catholic 


85 


Church;  and  a  statement  of  the  cause  by 
which  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  (who  was 
originally  in  claims,  as  he  is  now  in  essen- 
tial power,  no  more  than  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople, of  York,  of  Canterbury,  or  of 
Pennsylvania,)  has  usurped  the  liberties  of 
independent  Churches,  and  possesses,  as 
Alvarus,  Panorraitan,  and  others  say,  (even 
if  modern  Romanists  are  afraid  to  say,)  "  a 
most  full  power  over  the  whole  world,  hotJi 
ecclesiastical  and  civilJ'"' 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE   pope's   supremacy,  A  NEW  AND  ANTI- 
SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE. 

In  carrying  forward  our  defence  of  the 
Church,  by  investigating  among  other  mat- 
ters, the  fiction  of  the  Pope's  supremacy, 
(for  the  rejection  of  which,  the  Romish  sect 
has  dared  to  anathematize  the  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church,)  1  shall  give  the  result  to  which 
the  unprejudiced  investigation  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  Ecclesiastical  history  will  in- 
evitably lead. 

I. 

Nothing  about  the  Pope's  supremacy  in 
Holy  Scripture. 

This  point  is  one,  of  which  every  reader 
of  the  Bible  is  a  competent  judge ;  for  he 


87 


can  say  whether  from  Genesis  to  the  Reve- 
lation he  has  ever  met  with  one  word  about 
the  Pope's  Supremacy,  or  any  superior 
power  or  advantages  to  the  bishops  of 
Rome.  Now  St.  Peterh  Supremacy,  and 
the  Supremacy  of  St.  Peter's  successors, 
called  Popes,  are  two  very  different  and 
distinct  matters.  We  shall  take  up  St. 
Peter's  Supremacy  in  another  section ;  the 
point  before  us  here  is  the  supremacy  of  St. 
Peter's  successors,  called  Popes.  About 
the  supremacy  of  these  there  is  not  one 
word  :  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  be  found 
in  the  Bible :  there  has  never  been  one  pas- 
sage ever  adduced  by  Romanists ;  all  that 
they  adduce  having  relation  to  St.  Peter,  not 
to  his  successors.  If  you  prove  from  the 
Bible  that  Christ  made  St.  Peter  supreme 
among  his  brother  Apostles,  you  are  just  as 
far  as  ever  from  proving  that  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  must  be  similarly  supreme  among 
their  brother  bishops.     There  are  three 


88 


essential  points  to  be  settled  before  such  a 
conclusion  can  follow. 

1st.  That  Christ  by  gifting  St.  Peter 
with  supremacy  (admitting  now,  that  such 
is  the  fact,)  designed  this  supremacy  to  de- 
scend to  St.  Peter's  successors. 

2d.  That  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are.  St. 
Peter's  successors. 

3d,  That  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are  the 
only  successors  of  St.  Peter. 

Here  are  three  matters  to  be  jarouecZ  before 
any  of  the  texts  which  Romanists  pretend  to 
quote  from  the  New  Testament  in  favour  of 
Si.  Peter  can  apply  to  St.  Peter's  succes- 
sors. 

Now  this  is  a  plain  view  of  the  subject, 
and  I  beg  my  fellow  churchmen  to  keep  it 
in  mind.  You  have  no  need  (unless  you 
choose)  to  enter  into  a  long  examination 
whether  this  or  that  text  of  Scripture  ap- 
plies to  St.  Peter,  and  involves  his  suprem- 
acy ;  and  that  for  the  plain  reason,  that  it  is 


89 


nothing  to  the  point  in  dispute.  Suppose 
St.  Peter  was  supreme  "  in  civil  as  well  as 
ecclesiastical  matters ;"  suppose  he  was 
appointed  the  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
Prince  of  the  Apostles,  what  has  that  to  do 
with  his  successors  ? 

Suppose  that  the  celebrated  text  in  St. 
Matthew,  16th  ch.  18th  verse,  where  Christ, 
speaking  to  St.  Peter  concerning  this 
Apostle's  declaration  of  his  master's  high 
character,  says,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it, 
&c."  Suppose,  I  say,  that  this  means  all 
that  the  most  fearless  and  enthusiastic  Ro- 
manist desires  to  claim,  what  has  this  to  do 
with  St.  Peter's  successors  ?  It  has  nothing 
to  do  with  ihem,  and  for  the  common  sense 
reason,  that  it  says  nothing  about  this 
power  descending  to  them.  To  take  this 
for  granted  is  to  assume  the  very  point  to  be 
proved,  and  as  your  Romish  friend  talks 


90 


of  sticking  to  the  letter  of  wScripture  when 
he  pleads  for  Transubstantiation,  so  to  the 
letter  we  will  keep  him  when  he  pleads  for 
that  unscriptural  notion  of  the  Pope's  su- 
premacy. 

This  celebrated  passage  in  order  to  bene- 
fit St.  Peter's  successors,  should  have  read 
thus  : 

"  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock, 
namely,  yourself  and  your  successors  in  the 
Ste  of  Rome,  I  will  build  my  Church,"  &c. 

But  Christ  neither  said  nor  meant  any 
such  thing,  therefore  even  supposing  (what 
is  not  true)  that  this  passage  gave  St.  Peter 
a  supremacy,  it  has  no  more  to  do  with 
making  any  of  his  successors  supreme  than  it 
has  in  making  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania 
supreme.  And  here,  by  the  way,  is  a  point 
connected  with  the  successors  of  St.  Peter, 
which  is  so  frequently  forgotten,  that  I 
shall  make  another  section  of  it,  in  order 
to  bring  it  out  prominently. 


91 


11. 

WHO  are  tlie  Successors  of  St.  Peter  I 

In  answer  to  this  question,  the  Romanist 
will  boldly  answer  you,  (and  many  church- 
men will  not  care  to  question  an  answer 
made  so  boldly,)  St.  Peter's  successors  are 
of  course  the  Bishops  of  Rome  called  the 
Popes. 

But  be  not  deceived, — a  bold  affirmation 
is  no  sign  of  truth,  and  the  word  "  of 
course,"  is  more  convenient  than  conclu- 
sive. But  admit  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are 
St.  Peter's  successors,  then  with  far  more 
reason  must  we  admit  that  the  Bishops  of 
Antioch  are  his  successors,  because  all, 
(Romanists  among  the  rest,)  know  that  St. 
Peter  actually  resided  at  Antioch  several 
years. 

The  Bishops  of  Antioch,  therefore,  where 


92 


there  is  no  doubt  St.  Peter  resided  several 
years,  have  a  far  more  legitimate  claim  to  be 
the  successors  of  St.  Peter  than  the  Bishops 
of  Rome.  But  let  the  foregoing  point  be 
again  suggested,  that  unless  you  have  clear 
and  undoubted  Scriptural  authority  for  the 
powers  given  to  St.  Peter,  (be  those  powers 
what  they  may,)  descending  to  his  succes- 
sors, there  is  not  the  shadow  of  advance 
made  toward  the  supremacy  of  the  Bishops 
of  Rome  or  of  Antioch.  And  as  a  complete 
settling  of  this  whole  matter  concerning  such 
succession,  in  addition  to  the  conclusive 
proof  that  no  such  thing  is  alluded  to  in  the 
Bible,  I  present  the  fact  that  the  learned 
Romanists  themselves  give  it  up,  so  far  as 
Scripture  is  concerned. 

The  celebrated  Romish  writer  Bellar- 
MiNE,  finding  no  authority  in  the  word  of 
God,  whereon  to  build  the  notion  of"  Pon- 
tifical Succession,"  and  so  of  applying  the 
promises  to  St.  Peter  (be  they  what  they 


93 


may)  to  St.  Peter's  supposed  successors, 
the  Bishops  or  Popes  of  Rome,  confesses 
that  this  matter  has  no  foundation  in  Scrip' 
lure.*  This  same  writerj  says  that  Christ 
commanded  St.  Peter  to  fix  the  Apostolical 
seat  at  Rome ;  but  unfortunately  for  him 
and  his  church,  he  can  give  no  authority  for 
such  command  from  the  word  of  God,  and 
therefore  resorts  to  a  passage  out  of  an 
Apocryphal  Epistle  of  Pope  Marcellus, "  long 
since  discarded  as  the  most  notorious  cheat 
and  imposture  that  was  ever  put  upon  the 
Christian  Church,"  but  which  if  true,  is 
nothing  to  his  purpose,  and  if  it  were  to  his 
purpose,  would  weigh  but  little  with  an  in- 
telligent Churchman. 

*  De  Rom.  Pontiff,  L.  2  c.  12.  1.  4.  c.  4. 
+  De  Rom.  Pontiff,  L.  2.  c.  1.   Col.  599.  c.  12.  Col. 
628.  1.  4.  c.  4.  Col.  803. 


94 


III. 

Holy  Scripture  gives  no  Supremacy  to 
ST.  PETER. 

Having  cleared  the  way,  let  us  glance  for 
a  moment  at  the  fiction  of  St.  Peter  having 
a  supremacy  (using  this  word  in  the  Romish 
sense,)  among  his  brother  Apostles. 

And  where  now  is  any  Scriptural  author- 
ity for  St.  Peter's  supremacy  ? 

The  Romanist  is  ready  with  an  answer, 
viz.  in  the  16th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  and 
18th  verse. 

*'  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church  ;  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it."  In  this  pas- 
sage the  Romanist  supposes  that  Christ 
meant  St.  Peter  when  he  said  "upon  this 
rock,"  and  then  supposes,  that  by  this  say- 
ing, he  gave  him  the  supremacy  ;  and  then 
zgmn  supposes  that  in  giving  it  to  him,  he  like- 


95 


wise  gave  it  to  liis  successors ;  and  then 
ag^in  supposes  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are 
St.  Peter's  successors ;  and  then  again  sup- 
poses that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are  his  only 
successors.  Here  is  a  pretty  array  of  mere 
suppositions,  and  yet,  fellow  Churchmen, 
these  Dissenters,  taking  for  granted  all 
these  points,  have  the  face  to  turn  round 
and  anathematize  you,  for  not  believing 
what — if  the  blindness  of  prejudice  and 
education  were  not  present,  would  be  reject- 
ed by  the  lowest  of  their  number  as  the 

1    grossest  fallacy  in  logic ;  and  as  the  most 
direct  contradiction  of  primitive  antiquity 

j    and  the  Holy  Fathers. 

The  text  above  quoted,  does  not  bear 
upon  the  face  of  it  any  such  notion  of  suprem- 
acy to  St.  Peter,  since  the  rock  on  which 
Christ  built  his  Church,  was  the  declaration 
of  St.  Peter  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,"  and  this,  not  only  be- 

!   cause  the  original  Greek  favours  it :  but  be- 


96 


cause  "  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than 
that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ;" 
and  also  because  Justin  Martyr,*  (who 
lived  about  the  middle  of  the  2nd  century,) 
the  earliest  father  who  quotes  and  explains 
this  text,  expressly  asserts  that  the  rock  was 
St.  Peter's  confession  of  ihe  Divinity  of 
Christ.  With  Justin  Martyr,  agree  Chry- 
sostom,  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Jerome,  and 
Augustine. f  In  short,  thirty-six  Fathers 
and  Doctors  of  the  Church  of  all  ages  and 
nations  in  the  East  and  the  West,  including 
TEN  Popes,  interpret  the  rock  to  be  the  true 
Faith. 

This  will  be  conclusive  with  the  Church- 
man, in  showing  how  baseless  is  the  fig- 
ment of  the  Pope's  supremacy,  which  in 

*  Dial.  Cum  Tryph.  p.  255.  Sylb.  1593. 

fChrys.  Horn.  69.  Ser.de  Pentec.  Oper.  i.  and  vi. 
Athan.  ununi  e.sse  Chr.  Cyril  Catech.  vi.  p.  54. 
Hieron.  Comm.  of  Matt.  xvi.  18.  Aug.  Exp.  Tract 
124. 


97 


order  to  be  elicited  from  this,  their  grand 
proof  text,  involves  1st,  no  less  than 
dye  suppositions,  (incapable  of  proof;)  2d, 
a  flat  contradiction  to  other  Scripture  ;  3d, 
a  rejection  of  the  interpretation  of  the  most 
ancient  Father  who  quotes  and  explains  the 
text. 

A  very  fair  example,  among  other  things, 
of  the  hypocritical  respect  which  the  Romish 
sect  pretends  to  pay  to  the  early  Fathers; 
and  enough  to  show  that  if  this,  the  grand 
proof  text  to  St.  Peter's  supremacy  is  thus 
inconclusive,  we  may  dispense  with  farther 
examination,  and  believe  that  the  notion  of 
supremacy  of  power  even  as  it  regards  St. 
Peter  is  false.  Which  notion,  however,  if 
it  were  true  could  be  of  no  more  benefit  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  than  to  the  Bishop  of 
Pennsylvania.  For  the  last  is  just  as  much 
St.  Peter's  successor  (so  far  as  spiritual 
Apostolic  power  goes,)  as  the  first. 
7 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  NEW  ANTI-SCRIPTURAL 
rOCTRlNE  OF  THE   POPe's  SUPREMACY. 

It  must  ever  be  a  source  of  thankfulness 
to  God,  that  the  members  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,  possess  in  the  monuments 
of  early  ecclesiastical  history,  the  means  of 
detecting  the  rise  and  progress  of  every  her- 
etical or  minor  error  which  has  ever  disturb- 
ed the  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
thereby  of  confirming  the  testimony  of  the 
word  of  God.  So  that  when  we  are  com- 
pelled to  defend  ourselves,  from  the  attempt 
to  force  these  errors  upon  us,  we  have  a 
satisfactory  and  easy  mode  of  exposing  the 
error,  by  appealing  primarily  to  the  inspired 
Word  of  God,  and  then  to  the  evidence  of 


99 


primitive,  universal  tradition.  By  this  me- 
thod, therefore,  the  members  of  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  can  triumphantly  repel 
the  attacks  made  upon  them  by  all  schis- 
matics, but  especially  by  those  of  the 
Romish  sect,  when  attempting  to  force  upon 
us,  that  fruitful  cause  of  their  schism,  the 
novel  doctrine  of  the  Pope's  supremacy. 

My  readers  will  remember  that  we  have 
settled  two  important  points,  viz  :  "  What  is 
ihe  Pope's  supremacy  and,  "  That  there  is 
not  the  shadow  of  proof  to  the  novelty  in  Holy 
Scripture.''^  We  come  now  in  the  present 
and  a  future  chapter,  to  the  notice  of  several 
kindred  interesting  matters,  a  portion  of 
which,  derived  from  early  ecclesiastical 
history,  will  enable  the  Churchman  to  give 
a  very  satisfactory  history  of  the  origin  and 
progress  of  this  novelty,  for  the  rejection  of 
which  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  the 
Romish  Sect  has   employed  itself,  and 


100 


amused  the  world,  in  uttering  loud,  but 
harmless  bulls,  curses,  and  anathemas. 

I. 

Holy  Scripture  gives  EQUAL  Spiritual 
Power  to  ALL  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

The  only  inducement  to  deny  this  matter, 
which  is  most  abundantly  proved  by  the 
express  affirmations  of  our  blessed  Lord, 
and  of  the  Apostles  themselves,  has  arisen 
from  the  desire  to  make  St.  Peter  supreme. 
For  if  St.  Peter  is  made  supreme,  the 
Romanist  has  a  faint  hope,  that  he  may 
silently  take  for  granted  that  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  are  St.  Peter's  only  successors,  and 
hence  that  they  have  an  equal  right  to 
supremacy.  But  this  faint  hope  is  a  forlorn 
hope,  for  the  grand  proof  text  to  St.  Peter's 
supremacy,  which  is  supposed  to  be  found  in 
the  16th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  and  18th 
verse,  is  no  proof  at  all ;  and  if  it  were 


101 


proof  to  St.  Peter's  supremacy,  proves  no- 
thing as  to  St.  Peter's  successors^  even  ad- 
mitting (ivkat  is  fake)  that  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  are  any  more  St.  Peter's  successors 
than  the  Bishops  of  Antioch,  or  any  other 
Bishops. 

But  now,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a 
vast  variety  of  plain  declarations,  which,  to 
the  honest  and  unprejudiced  mind,  will  be 
conclusive ;  in  which  equality  of  spiritual 
power  is  given  to  all  the  Apostles.  Some 
of  these  passages  are  herewith  given:  (1) 
St.  John  XX.  21—23  :  "As  my  Father  hath 
sent  me,  even  so  send  I  ?/ou."  "Whose 
soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto 
them  ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained."  (2)  St.  Matthew  xxviii, 
18 — 20:  "All  power  is  given  to  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth,  go  ye,  therefore,"  &c. 
"  And  lo  1  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world."  (3)  St.  Matthew 
XX.  25 — 27 :  "  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of 


102 


the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them, 
and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority 
over  them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so  among 
you,^^  &c.  (4)  Revelations  xxi.  14  ;  "  And 
the  wall  of  the  city  had  twelve  foundations 
and  in  them  the  names  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles of  the  Lamb." 

This  last  text  shows  the  equality  of  the 
Apostles,  and  that  in  the  same  sense  that 
St.  Peter  can  be  called  the  rock  or  founda- 
tion of  the  Church,  all  the  Apostles  can  be 
so  called. 

These  texts  (and  many  others*)  suffi- 
ciently proclaim  the  intention  of  Christ  as  to 
the  spiritual  equality  of  his  Apostles,  and 
so  of  their  successors,  all  Bishops  ;  since  it 
was  to  the  twelve  Apostles  (not  to  St.  Peter 
only)  that  he  promised,  "  lo,  I  am  with  you 
{all  of  you)  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  " 

♦  St.  Matt.  I.  14,  15 ;  xix.  28.  John  xiv.  6.  1  Cor. 
xii.  18.   Gal.  ii.  7,  9.    1  Peter  v.  1—3. 


103 


11. 

Tlie  same  Equality  affirmed  by  tlie 
AXCIE.VT  FATHERS. 

In  exact  accordance  with  Holy  Scripture, 
do  we  find  the  voice  of  the  early  fathers, 
and  other  learned  doctors,  whilst  giving  St. 
Peter  a  certain  kind  of  priority,  (jnst  as  we 
are  willing  to  give  him.)  they  still  clearly 
and  decidedly  affirm  the  equality  of  the 
xVpostles  in  the  point  now  under  considera- 
tion. 

TertulHan*  says,  "  We  have  the  Jpo&Ues 
of  Christ  for  our  authors."  (Xot  St.  Peter 
alone,  but  "  the  Jpostles.''') 

Cyprian  szys,  "  Certainly  the  other  Apos- 
tles were  what  St.  Peter  was,  endowed  with 
an  equal  plerdilude  hnih  of  honour  and 
power.^^f 

*  De  Praescrip.  adv.  Hcres. 
t  De  Unit.  Eccl. 


104 


Ambrose*  says,  "  St.  Peter  takes  the  pre- 
cedence in  confession,  not  in  honour  the 
precedence  in  faith,  not  in  order.  What  is 
said  to  St.  Peter,  is  said  to  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles.'^'* 

Chrysoslom]  says,  "  Tlie  Apostles,  all  in 
common^  are  entrusted  with  the  care  of  the 
whole  world." 

Victor  of  CarthageX  says,  "  The  Blessed 
Apostles  were  endued  with  equal  fellowship 
of  honour  and  powers 

Isadore  Hispalensis§  says,  "  The  other 
Apostles  received  an  equal  fellowship  of 
power  and  honour  with  St.  Peter." 

Nicholas  de  Cusa  ]|  says,  "  We  know  that 
Peter  received  from  Christ  no  more  power 

♦  Lib.  Incar.  c.  iv.  t.  ii.  p.  710;  et  in  Psalm  xxxviii. 
t.  i.  p.  858. 
t  Oper.  p.  17,  ed.  Ben. 
X  Epist.  ad  Theodor.  Pap. 
J  De  Officiis,  lib.  ii.  c.  5. 
II  De  Cone.  Cath.  lib.  ii.  c.  13. 


105 


than  the  other  Apostles  ;  for  nothing  was  said 
to  Peter  that  was  not  also  said  to  the  others. 
Therefore  we  say  rightly,  that  all  the  Apos- 
tles were  equal  in  power  with  Peter." 

III. 

PRIORITY  not  SUPREMACY. 

Every  intelligent  man,  who  has  the  least 
acquaintance  with  the  Gospels,  knows  that 
St.  Peter  was,  by  natural  temperament  and 
by  his  age,  the  "  spokesman  general''  for 
the  Apostles  ;  but  this  priority,  or  any  other 
priority,  is  a  vastly  different  matter  from 
"  spiritual  supremacy."  But  whether  St. 
Peter's  priority  was  at  all  enviable,  each  one 
will  judge  for  himself.  One  thing  is  clear, 
it  led  him  to  be  first  in  erroi-,  as  well  as 
in  speaking  the  truth.  For  it  was  the  same 
Peter  who  confessed,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ," 
and  received  the  approval  of  Christ;  and 
who  afterwards  ignorantly  dared  to  rebuke 


106 


Christ,  and  received  the  reproof,  "  Get  thee 
behind  me,  Satan."  It  was  the  same  Peter, 
who  was  first  to  declare,  "  Though  I  should 
die  with  thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  thee;"  and 
who  afterwards,  just  as  boldlj'^,  affirmed  with 
an  oath,  "  I  do  not  know  the  man." 

It  was  the  same  Peter  who,  at  one  time, 
could  openly  "  eat  with  the  Gentiles  ;"  and 
then,  at  another  time,  withdraw  himself 
through  fear,  and  dissemble  so  grossly,  that 
his  equal  in  the  Apostleship,  his  superior  in 
firmness,  St.  Paul,  "  withstood  him  to  the 
face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed." 

A  certain  kind  of  priority,  therefore,  the 
members  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  are 
free  to  concede  to  St.  Peter,  though  not  even 
this  to  any  of  his  successors,  much  less  to 
his  pretended  exclusive  successors,  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome.  The  Early  Fathers  had  their 
different  opinions  on  this  priority  of  St.  Pe- 
ter:   (1)  Some*  suppose  that  Christ  ad- 

♦  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Cyril. 


107 


dressed  him  particularly  on  several  occa- 
sions, as  the  representative  of  the  other 
Apostles.  (2)  Others-}-  thought  he  had  a 
certain  sort  of  priority  on  account  of  his  age. 
(3)  Others:^:  ascribed  it  to  his  being  first 
called.  (4)  Others*  thought  he  had  a  pri- 
ority, on  occount  of  his  public  confession  of 
Christ. 

Thus  they  had  their  several  opinions  as  to 
the  reasons  for  a  mere  personal  or  honorary 
priority,  which  both  they  and  we  admit;  but 
neither  the  Ancient  Fathers,  (any  more  than 
the  word  of  God,  or  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  now-a-days,)  believed  such  a  base- 
less dogma  as  St.  Peter's  or  the  Pope's 
"  Supremacy .^^ 

In  closing  this  section,  I  would  simply 
call  the  attention  of  Churchmen  to  the  fact, 
that  in  the  celebrated  1 6th  chapter  of  St. 

♦  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Cassianus. 

+  Epiphanius,  Cyprian,  Hilary,  Basil,  Greg.  Max. 

t  Greg.  Naz.  Basil,  Epiphan.  Optatus,  Amb. 


108 


Matthew,  from  which  the  Romanist  so  stre- 
nuously urges,  that  St.  Peter  is  supreme,  and 
hence  that  his  swccessors  are  so, — in  this  same 
chapter,  and  just  three  verses  after  the  pas- 
sage on  which  such  reliance  is  placed,  comes 
the  equally  remarkable  declaration  of  Christ 
to  St.  Peter,  "Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan ; 
thou  art  an  offence  unto  me :  for  thou  sa- 
vorest  not  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but 
those  that  be  of  men." 

We  reserve  for  another  chapter  the  history 
of  the  causes  which  gradually  led  to  the  as- 
sertion and  exercise  of  "The  Supremacy" 
by  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  their  conse- 
quent violation  of  the  design  of  Christ  in 
the  establishment  of  His  Church,  and  thus 
of  the  unity  of  that  holy  body  itself. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  NEW  AND  ANTI- 
SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  POPe'S 
SUPREMACY. 

Next  to  the  inspired  word  of  God,  early 
Ecclesiastical  History  opens  before  the 
Churchman  a  fruitful  and  gratifying  field 
for  investigation.  To  its  illustrative  and 
confirming  testimony  he  may  most  confi- 
dently appeal,  in  defence  of  his  claim  to  be 
a  member  of  that  Divine  organization,  esta- 
blished by  the  great  author  of  the  world's 
Redemption,  as  "the  Church  of  the  Living 
God— the  Pillar  and  Ground  of  the  truth." 
By  the  aid  of  such  primitive  monuments  as 
remain,  and  those  morp  copious  records  of 
later  times,  he  can  trace  the  progress  of  the 
Universal  Church  of  Christ,  through  all  its 


no 


vicissitudes  of  persecution  and  triumph,  pu- 
rity and  error.  He  can  discover  its  original 
organization  and  faith  ;  the  universality  of 
its  diffusion  ;  and  the  equality  of  the  various 
branches  ;  the  rise  and  progress  of  false  doc- 
trine, heresy  and  schism  :  and  can  fix  with 
unerring  certainty  upon  the  causes  and 
authors  of  that  lamentable  violation  of  unity 
which  exists  at  the  present  day  among 
"  those  who  profess  and  call  themselves 
Christians." 

Among  other  plain  matters  of  historical 
fact,  which  Ecclesiastical  history  presents, 
and  in  relation  to  which,  the  attacks  of  the 
Romish  sect  upon  the  Church,  have  rendered 
necessary  for  Churchmen  to  refresh  their 
minds,  is  that  anti- scriptural  and  novel  doc- 
trine, the  Papal  Supremacy. 

The  grand  matters  of  fact  which  it  be- 
hooves every  Churchman  to  keep  distinctly 
before  him,  are,  that  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  established  in  Great  Britain  by  St. 


Ill 


Paul,  in  the  first  century,  is  the  only  legiti- 
mate Church  in  those  islands ; — that  the 
rights  of  this  Church,  when  depressed  in  the 
sixth  century,  were  invaded  by  the  Romish 
Church,  in  the  person  of  the  monk  Augus- 
tin : — that  with  a  gradually  increasing 
amount  of  Romish  corruption,  the  Church 
in  Britain  continued  till  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury ; — that  in  that  century,  at  the  Reforma- 
tion, she  cast  out  the  errors  of  the  usurping 
and  schismatical  Roman  Church; — that 
from  this  British  Church,  the  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church  in  the  United  States,  called  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  has  descend- 
ed;— that  the  present  adherents  to  Rome, 
whether  in  England  or  the  United  States, 
are  therefore  schismatical  (not  to  speak  of 
their  errors  in  faith)  in  not  uniting  with  the 
Dnly  legitimate  branch  of  the  Church  Uni- 
.•ersa],  in  these  several  countries. 

In  the  course  of  our  defence  of  the  Inde- 
'endence  of  the  Church  of  England,  among 


112 


other  matters,  we  have  been  examining  the 
anti-scriptural  character  of  that  novelty, 
"  The  Pope's  supremacy,"  the  maintenance 
of  which  has  led  the  Romish  Church  to  at- 
tempt to  play  the  mistress  over  her  equals, 
and  thus  place  herself  in  the  light  of  a  mere 
sect,  in  schism  with  the  Church  in  England 
and  the  United  States  ;  and  a  violator  of  the 
unity  of  the  Holy  Church  throughout  all 
the  world.* 

Having,  in  the  last  two  chapters,  seen 
that  this  novelty  contradicts  Holy  Scripture, 
and  the  records  of  the  primitive  Church,  we 
advance,  in  the  present  chapter,  to  a  very 
interesting  citation  of  historical  facts,  by 
which  each  Churchman  may  have  the  satis- 
faction of  being  able  to  trace  the  whole  pe- 
digree of  that  doctrine,  which  claims  power 

*  By  the  Anathemas  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  the 
Church  of  Rome  has  made  herself  schismatical  in 
relation  to  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  throughout  all 
the  world. 


113 


''^  over  the  whole  tvorld,  hath  Ecclesiastieal  and 
civil:' 

I. 

Reasons  for  tlie  Superior  Influence  of 
tlie  Bisliops  of  Rome. 

Now  if  one  were  to  believe  all  that 
Romish  writers   insinuate  about  ancient 
Rome,  we  should  be  led  to  think  that  it  was 
one  of  the  most  marvellous  and  impossible 
\    things  imaginable,  that  the  Bishops  of  the 
t    city  of  Rome  should  obtain  any  priority  or 
I    primacy  over  the  Bishops  of  other  cities ; 
!   whereas  the  truth  is,  that  in  this  city  of 
I   Rome,  was  centered  an  unequalled  combina- 
'  tion  of  influences,  favourable  to  the  creation 
of  an  ambitious  spirit.    Not  to  enumerate 
that  which  it  claimed  in  common  with  sister 
(-  churches,  "  Apostolical  origin"*  and  "  Pu- 
i  rity  of  faith,"!        bring  out  prominently, 

*  Irenasus  adv.  Heres,  lib,  iii.  c.  3.  Sozomen.  Hist. 
;}  Eccl.  lib.  iii.  c  8. 

15     f  IrensBUs,  ibid.  St.  Augus.  Epist.  162.  col.  728. 


Hi 


the  following  polent  influences,  which  con- 
tributed to  make  all  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
*♦  considerably  bigger  (as  Cave  has  it)  than 
the  rest  of  their  Brethren." 

(1)  Rome  was  the  Imperial  City.-*  "a 
place  that  seemed  born  for  Empire, — that 
had  long  since  conquered,  and  at  that  time 
governed  the  greatest  part  of  the  world  :  a 
city  that  was  the  centre  of  all  nations,  and 
the  seat  of  majesty  and  magnificence,  where 
all  great  affairs  were  transacted ;  which  could 
not  but  reflect  a  more  than  ordinary  lustre 
upon  those  Bishops  that  sat  at  the  upper  end 
of  the  world.  And  by  reason  of  the  gene- 
ral confluence  of  all  nations  to  Rome,  ena- 
bled them,  in  a  little  time  to  draw  the  cog- 
nizance of  ecclesiastical  causes  from  all  parts 
thither.  After  the  Emperors  became 
Christians,  the  Roman  Church  was  espe- 

*  Athanas.  Ep.  ad  Solit.  p,  614.  Dionys.  de  Script 
oib.  V.  355  p.  8. 


115 


cially  enriched  by  them  with  vast  honours 
and  privileges,  accounting  that  the  greatness 
of  that  Church  would  not  a  little  contribute 
to  the  splendour  and  magnificence  of  the 
Empire.*  " 

Now  some  Romish  writers  attempt  to 
avoid  this  plain  truth,  by  actually  affirming 
that  the  grandeur  and  greatness  of  the  Im- 
perial City,  brought  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
into  greater  dangers  than  any  others,  and 
therefore  tended  to  depress  and  impoverish 
that  Church.  Tn  refutation  of  this  violation 
of  historic  truth,  let  the  following  facts 
(which  are  also  inJluenUal  causes)  be  at- 
tended to. 

(2)  The  Romish  Church  abounded  in 
wealth  and  pomp.  We  know  her  wealth 
even  from  her  char  Hies :  for  from  the  earliest 
times,  the  relief  which  Rome  was  able  to, 
and  actually  did  extend  to  other  churches  is 


*  Cave.  An.  Ch.  Gov.  pp.  20,  70. 


116 


notorious,*  so  that  in  the  words  of  Diony- 
sius  Alexandrinus,  "all  Syria  and  Arabia 
received  supplies  from  Rome."| 

Again,  in  proof  of  the  wealth  of  the 
Romish  Church,  her  vast  revenues  are  wit- 
nesses, for,  as  an  old  writer  testifies,  besides 
their  standing  rents  and  revenues,  their  gains 
by  collections  and  oblations,  were  so  great, 
that  by  them  alone,  in  the  time  of  Damasus^ 
"  they  were  enabled  to  live  in  a  state  of 
grandeur  like  that  of  Temporal  Princes.^^^ 

And  if  any  farther  proof  be  needed  of  the 
pomp  and  wealth  of  the  Romish  Church, 
we  have  it  in  the  testimony  of  Praetextatus, 
a  gentile,  who  said  to  Damasus,  "  Make  me 
but  Bishop  of  Borne,  and  1  will  become  a 
Christian."''^ 

*  Eusebius  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  iv.  c.  23.  Ammianua 
Marcellinus,  lib.  27. 
t  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  vii.  c.  4. 
J  Aram  Marc,  ut  ante. 
^  Hieron.  ad  Pammach.  avd.  Orror,  p.  165. 


117 


We  give  another  reason  for  the  influence 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  viz.  : 

(3)  The  Church  of  Rome  had  a  multitude 
of  Clergy  and  members.  "  Even  in  the 
time  of  the  severest  persecution  under  De- 
cius,  Pope  Cornelius  wrote  to  Fabius, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  that  "  by  the  Providence 
of  God,  it  had  a  rich  and  plentiful  number 
of  Clergy,  ^ith  a  great  and  innumerable 
people,"!  so  that  he  reckons  152  clergy  of 
various  degrees,  and  1500  widows  and  alms- 
people."! 

Another  writer  (Cyprian)  tells  us  in  his 
epistle  to  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  that 
"  he   (Cornelius)  had  a  most  flourishing 
clergy,  and  most  holy  and  numerous  peo- 
1  ple."^ 

j  These  various  circumstances,  then,  as 
1  Palmer  justly  remarks,  united  and  centering 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  lib.  vi.  c.  43. 
+  Palm.  Hist.  Ch.  vol.  ii.  p.  499. 
t  Epist.  52,  conip.  Theodoret.  Epist.  113,  ad  Leon. 


118 


in  Rome  alone,  gave  that  Church,  from  the 
beginning,  a  pre-eminence. 

II. 

The  pride  of  tlie'  Bisliops  of  Rome,  and 
tlicir  lirst  attempts  to  albuse  tlielr  in- 
fluence. 

Having  settled  the  fact  that  the  Bisliops 
of  Rome  did  anciently  (and  so  far  justly) 
possess  a  superior  influence,  owing  to  their 
being  placed  in  the  imperial  city,  we  shall 
advance  another  step  in  examining  the  rise 
of  "  the  Supremacy,^''  (a  very  different  mat- 
ter from  a  proper  influence)  by  noticing  the 
following  facts. 

(1.)  A.  D.  196.  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
dared  to  excommunicate  the  Eastern  Chris- 
tians, because  they  observed  Easter  differ- 
ently from  the  Roman  custom.  The  Eastern 
Church  regarded  Victor  about  as  much  as 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  would  re- 
gard the  present  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  Whilst 
Irenseus  rebuked  Victor  with  just  as  much 


119 


freedom  and  sharpness  as  any  independent 
Churchman  would  rebuke  a  violator  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church. 

(2.)  A.  D.  240.  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
forgot  both  his  temper  and  charity,  on  the 
occasion  of  the  African  Bishops  re-baptizing 
heretics,  and  not  only  ventured  to  excom- 
municate Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  but 
actually  denied  certain  African  Bishops  who 
came  to  Rome,  "the  common  offices  of 
humanity  and  charity."* 

But  Stephen  had  met  with  his  equal,  not 
only  in  Episcopal  authority,  but  in  bold  and 
determined  bearing ;  and  received  such  an 
answer  from  Cyprian  as  taught  him  the 
pride  and  impertinence  of  his  conduct.  Of 
course  the  African  churches  only  pitied, 
without  regarding  the  indiscretion  into  which 
their  hasty  brother  of  Rome  had  fallen. 

(3.)   Another  evidence  of  the  rebuke 

*  Firmil.  Ep.  ad.  Cypr.  inter  Cyp.  Ep.  p.  150. 


120 


which  Roman  pride  met  with  may  be  found 
in  Basil's  Epistle  to  Gregory,*  where  he 
complains  of  "the  Pride  of  the  West," 
as  he  calls  it,  and  again  (as  the  Romish 
BaroniuSjf  gives  us  the  authority)  expresses 
a  very  passionate  resentment,  and  that  he 
hated  the  pride  of  that  (the  Roman)  Church. 

(4.)  A  very  good  authority,  farther  to 
show  that  in  early  times,  all  the  influence 
which  the  Bishops  of  Rome  possessed,  did 
not  amount  to  anything  like  "  Supremacy," 
is  one  of  the  Romish  Popes  himself. 

Pius  the  Second,  when  Cardinal,  says, 
that  "before  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Coun- 
cil, very  little  regard  was  had  to  the  See  of 
Rome.":|:  In  attestation  of  which,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  know,  that  at  the  synod  of 

*  Ep.  74,  ad  Pomp,  per  tot.  p.  129.   Synod  Carth. 
apud  Cyp.,  p.  282. 
t  Ep.  10,  p.  54. 
t  Ad.  An.  372,  T.  4,  p.  322. 
H  Epist.  282,  p.  802. 


121 


Aries,  (about  eleven  years  before  the  Nicene 
Council,)  the  Bishop  of  Rome  subscribed 
his  name,  not  in  the  first  place,  but  in  the 
fifths  a  pretty  good  proof  that  Pope  Pius 
had  some  grounds  for  his  Ante-Nicene  esti- 
mation of  the  See  of  Rome. 

But  notwithstanding  these  ancient  re- 
bukes, through  the  influence  of  wealth  and 
ambition  on  the  one  hand,  and  an  unguarded 
yielding  up  of  Catholic^] rights  on  the  other 
hand,  the  early  influence  of  Rome  gradually 
increased,  till  we  find  the  Papacy,  or  Papal 
Supremacy  claimed  and  exercised  ;  some 
interesting  facts  connected  with  which  are 
reserved  for  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER 
THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  new  and 

ANTI-SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  POPE's 
SUPREMACY.- 

The  constant  attacks,  which  in  public  and 
private,  from  the  pulpit  and  in  books,  both 
officially  and  personally,  have  been  made 
upon  the  Church,  by  the  Romish  sect,  afford 
substantial  reasons  for  Churchmen  to  refresh 
their  minds  by  examining  the  venerable 
foundation  of  holy  Scripture  and  Catholic 
antiquity  on  which  the  Church  of  the  living 
God  rests,  and  so  by  consequence,  the  un- 
scriptural  and  sandy  foundation  upon  which, 
from  time  to  time,  the  various  notions  of 
Romanism  have  b»en  erected. 

There  is  not  the  least  necessity  for  the 


123 


Churchman's  travelling  out  of  his  way  to 
meet  the  attacks  of  the  Romanists  by  counter 
attacks,  but  there  is  necessity  that  he  should 
meet  them  by  confirming  himself  in  his 
own  true  faith.  As  for  controversy^^''  let 
him  avoid  it,  if  possible,  but  at  all  risks  he 
must  maintain  his  faith,  and  repel  the  attacks 
of  the  assailing  schismatic,  as  long  as  the 
love  of  Christ  is  in  his  heart,  or  the  recollec- 
tion of  Rome's  usurpation^  and  the  bloody 
price  we  paid  for  our  Reformation  lives  in 
his  mind. 

As  for  Romanists  personally,  they  claim 
and  receive,  as  they  ever  have  received,  our 
Christian  charity,  but  as  for  Romanism  (that 
system  which  comprehends  the  novel  addi- 
tions made  to  the  old  Holy  Catholic  faith) 
it  cannot  be  regarded  with  favour  by  any 
true  Catholic  Churchman. 

We  have,  just  above,  made  use  of  the 
word  "  usM77?a/torj,"  now  it  has  been  a 
chief  object  of  the  present  work  to  give  an 


124 


extended  proof  of  this  fact  from  plain  his- 
torical evidence,  so  far  as  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  in  England  and  the  United  States 
is  concerned. 

In  having  adduced  the  testimony  of  credi- 
ble and  early  ecclesiastical  writers,  to  the 
apostolic  origin  of  the  British  Church,w^e  have 
settled  the  Apostolical,  original  and  divinely 
established  Independence  of  the  Church  in 
England.  Whilst  the  records  of  fact,  and  the 
admissions  of  learned  Romanists,  show  that, 
in  so  far  as  the  particular  Church  of  Italy  is 
concerned,  we  are  older  than  Rome. 

We  have  also  pointed  out  the  plain  truth 
— attempted  to  be  rendered  obscure — that  a 
change  of  name  is  not  a  change  of  being, 
and  hence  that  the  Church  in  England  has 
been  the  same  from  the  apostles'  times  to 
the  present  hour,  though  from  several  po- 
litical and  religious  causes,  she  has  borne 
the  name  of  British,  Anglo-Saxon,  Anglo- 
Romish,  English,  and  Protestant  Episcopal. 


125 


It  has  farther  been  pointed  out,  how  utter- 
ly unscriptural  and  novel  is  the  notion  of  the 
universal  supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
which  is  the  only  show  of  argument  to  be 
offered  why,  if  Britain  was  independent, 
she  ought  not  so  to  have  been.  We  have 
traced  this  last  point  up  through  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  ancient  authors,  till  it  only  remains 
to  exhibit  the  means  by  which  the  Papal 
supremacy  arose,  and  also  to  present  some 
interesting  historical  facts  farther  tending  to 
confirm  its  novelty. 

I. 

Tlie  3IEA.XS  by  wliicli  tlie  mflaence  of 
tlie  Bishops  of  Rome  iucreased  to  tlie 
aurighteous  claim  of  "  supremacy." 

We  have  heretofore  exhibited  the  high 
estimation  in  which  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
were  held  by  their  brother  Bishops  and 
equals,  on  account  of  the  several  circum- 
stances centring  in  this  great  metropolis. 


126 


It  was  the  abuse  of  this  influence,  which 
gradually  brought  in  the  absurd  and  even 
ridiculous  notion  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
having  authority  "  over  the  whole  world, 
both  ecclesiastical  and  civil."  We  shall 
specify  some  of  these  abuses  ;  and,  ^rs/, 

It  was  very  natural  and  proper  when  in- 
justice had  been  done  to  a  Bishop  by  a  pro- 
vincial Synod,  for  said  Bishop  to  seek  the 
influence  of  some  fellow  Bishop  toward 
being  righted.  The  more  influential  the 
Bishop,  provided  he  was  ready  to  take  the 
trouble,  the  better  chance  had  the  dissatisfied 
Bishop  of  having  justice  done  him.  Now, 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  being  in  the  chief  city, 
with  a  wealthy  church  and  numerous  clergy, 
and  withal,  in  early  times,  being  sound  in 
the  faith,  and  ready  to  befriend  a  brother, 
would  of  course  be  the  one  to  whom  many 
would  resort.  Such  was  the  case.  Early 
ecclesiastical  history  gives  us  examples  of 
such  "  appeals,"  so  called  to  Rome,  and 


127 


also  similar  appeals  to  other  Bishops.  The 
same  history  likewise  informs  us,  that  there 
was  "  no  supremacy"  either  claimed  by 
Rome  or  thought  of  by  the  appealing  bishops. 

This  matter  of  "appeals"  is  as  plain, 
natural,  and  common  sense  a  matter  as  any 
other  in  the  world,  and  yet  you  hear  the 
Romanist  boasting  of  it  as  though  it  proved 
his  favourite  notion  of  "  Papal  suprema- 
cy." But,  in  the  coarse  of  time,  Roman 
pride — which  was  shown  in  the  last  chap- 
ter— and  the  increasin.,  desire  for  power, 
led  the  Bishops  of  Rome  to  claim  as  a 
matter  of  righi^  what  was  entrusted  to  them 
//)  common  with  others — as  a  matter  of  cour- 
tesy and  convenience.  Though  at  first  this 
usurpation  was  resisted,  still,  in  the  course 
of  time,  ambition,  and  wealth,  and  influence 
triumphed. 

Besides  the  above  example  of  "  appeals," 
— by  which  we  see  how  the  very  natural 
custom  of  asking  the  influence  of  the  brother 


128 

Bishop  of  Rome,  was  ^adually  claimed  as 
a  right,  and  thus  made  a  snare  to  enslave 
the  free  Churches  of  Christ; — we  give  a 
second  means,  by  which  the  supremacy  was 
established.  In  difficult  cases,  it  was  early 
the  custom  of  bishops  to  consult  with  bish- 
ops of  a  neighbouring  see,  and  receive  their 
opinion.  For  just  the  same  reason  that  ap- 
peals were  often  carried  to  Rome,  so  was 
the  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  frequent- 
ly solicited.  This  simple  custom  is  capable, 
any  one  may  perceive,  of  being  abused.  An 
ambitious  man,  who  at  first  gives  his  advice 
gratuitously,  and  without  notion  of  his  hav- 
ing an  abstract  right  to  do  so,  may  gradually 
be  led  (particularly  if  he  be  much  courted  and 
frequently  consulted)  to  demand  that  he 
arbitrate  in  difficult  matters,  and  that  his 
opinion  be  received  as  authority.  Exactly 
so  was  it  with  Rome.  We  have  lying  be- 
fore us,  historical  records  of  first  the  proper 
behaviour  of  Rome,  then  of  her  evident  pride 


129 


in  claiming  authority,  the  resistance  of  these 
claims,  and  finally  of  the  triumph  of  this 
ambitious  and  powerful  Church,  over  the 
Catholic  rights  of  her  equals.  The  noto- 
rious forgery  of  a  body  of  laws,  purporting 
to  be  the  authoritative  decrees  of  ancient 
popes,  known  as  "  The  Decretal  Epistles," 
was  one  of  the  ungodly  but  successful  means 
of  furthering  the  Papal  supremacy. 

third  means,  which  was  powerful  in 
creating  and  establishing  "  the  supremacy," 
was  tlie  power  of  "  deputing  persons  to 
execute  those  laws  and  decisions,  which 
Rome  had  given  in  all  parts  of  the  Church. 
This  power,  says  the  learned  Palmer,* 

*  If  any  one  feels  inclined  to  pursue  this  matter, 
he  will  find  sufficient  information  in  Palmer's  His- 
tory of  the  Church,  vol.  ii.  part  vii.  chap.  viii.  Pal- 
mer has  satisfactorily-  abridged  some  of  the  standard 
authorities  on  these  matters.  See  also  Barrow  on 
the  Pope's  Supremacy.  Du  Pin,  de  Antiq.  Eccl. 
Discip.  Fleury,  Discours  sur  I'Hist.  Eccl.  Jus  Ca- 
nonicum,  Thomassen  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  De 
Hontheim,  Febronius,  Koch.  Van  Espen,  &c. 
9 


130 


arose  gradually.  It  is  not  till  the  latter  part 
of  the  fourth  century  that  we  read  of  vicars 
or  legates  of  the  Roman  see."  But  the  de- 
sire of  metropolitans  to  have  the  influence 
of  the  powerful  and  wealthy  Bishops  of 
Rome,  led  them  to  receive  the  authority  of 
the  Roman  see  in  confirmation  of  their  own 
authority. 

"  In  this  manner  the  pontiffs  rendered  the 
chief  bishops  of  each  country  in  the  West 
subservient  to  them  ;  and  as  the  temper  of 
the  times  admitted,  they  increased  their 
powers,  or  encouraged  them  to  make  inroads 
on  the  liberties  of  Churches." 

Thus  again,  we  have  a  powerful  agent 
exhibited,  which  tended,  along  with  the 
other  influences,  to  establish  and  confirm 
that  monstrous  abuse — of  what  were  at  first 
natural  and  proper  customs — which  is  now 
called  "The  Supremacy,"  and 'claimed  as 
a  matter  of  divine  right.  Aye,  even  so  far 
has  this  last  influence  gone,  that  men  claim- 


131 


ing  to  be  bishops,  independent  bishops,  as 
they  ought  to  be,  the  divinely  appointed 
governors  of  the  Church,  equal  in  spiritual 
power  to  any  Pope — even  these  have  con- 
sented to  be  degraded  to  an  inferior  position, 
and  the  chief  bishop  of  a  country  to  be 
called  "  The  Pope's  Vicar,"  in  sign  of  his 
acknowledgment  of  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope. 

A  blessed  thing,  for  the  members  of  our 
branch  of  the  Church,  to  feel  that  such  de- 
gradation has  never  yet  been  seen  among 
their  "chief  shepherds."  No  true  Catholic 
Bishop  has  ever  yet  proved  so  recreant  to 
Jesus  Christ  and  his  holy  Church,  as  to  be 
called  the  Vicar  of  any  man.  Our  bishops 
are  the  Vicars  of  Jesus  Christ,  "  ambassa- 
dors for  Christ,"  and  hence  the  equals  of  the 
Pope,  and  superiors  of  the  Popeh  Bishops. 

If  now  to  the  above  mentioned  influences, 
the  Churchman  adds,  "  the  temporal  power 
of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,"  and  the  energetic 


132 


efforts  of  "the  monastic  system,"  he  will 
have  a  complete  array  of  influence,  enough 
to  make  any  bishop  a  "  Pope,"  full  enough 
to  increase  just  episcopal  primacy  to  "Papal 
Supremacy." 


CHAPTER  XI. 


the  political  character  of  the 
pope's  supremacy. 

Having,  in  the  foregoing  chapters,  suffi- 
ciently vindicated  our  Church  from  misre- 
presentation, and  especially  from  the  charge 
of  schism,  in  rejecting  and  protesting  against 
the  anti-scriptural  and  novel  dogma  of  the 
Pope's  supremacy,  there  is  one  farther  point 
of  interest  to  which  the  present  chapter  is 
devoted.  The  subject  referred  to  is  the  Po- 
litical  character  of  the  Pope's  supremacy. 
In  the  discussion  of  this  point  a  collection 
of  facts  and  authorities  shall  be  brought, 
which  may  be  useful  even  to  our  erring  bro- 
thers of  the  Romish  sect ;  it  will  certainly 
be  of  importance  to  every  true  Catholic 
Churchman. 


134 


I. 

The  Political  cliaracter  of  tlie  "  Pope's 
Supremacy"  proved  from  ROMISH 
WRITERS. 

(1.)  The  celebrated  Thomas,  styled  "  the 
Anglican  Doctor,'*''  says,  "  The  Pope  is  the 
top  of  BOTH  powers,"*  (civil  and  religious,) 
and  "  when  any  one  is  denounced  excom- 
municate for  apostacy,  his  subjects  are  im- 
mediately freed  from  his  dominion,  and  their 
oath  of  allegiance  to 

(2.)  The  author  of  "The  Rule  of 
Princes:|:  also  affirms,  "The  Pope,  as  Su- 
preme King  of  all  the  world,  may  impose 
taxes  ON  ALL  Christians,  and  destroy  towns 
and  castles  for  the  preservation  of  Chris- 
tianity." 

*  "  In  papa  esse  apicum  utriusque  potestatis."  In 
fine  Secun.  Sent. 

t  —  et  juramento  fidelitatis  ejus  liberati  sunt."  ii. 
Sec.  q.  12,  art.  2. 

t  "  —  et  civitates  ac  castra  destruere"— de  Regira 
Princ.  c.  10,  19. 


135 


(3.)  In  the  Lateran  Council,  the  ad- 
dress to  Leo  X.  was  as  follows  : — "  Snatch 
up,  therefore,  the  two-edged  sword  of  divine 
power,  committed  to  thee  :  and  enjom,  com- 
mand^  and  charge  that  an  universal  peace 
and  alliance  be  made  among  Christians  for 
at  least  ten  years  ;  and  to  that  biiid  kings  in 
the  fetters  of  the  great  King,  and  constrain 
nobles  by  the  iron  manacles  of  censures for 
to  thee  is  given  all  power  in  heaven  and  in 
earth:'* 

(4.)  Baronius  makes  the  following  un- 
equivocal affirmation :   "  There  can  be  no 

doubt  of  it,  BUT  THAT  THE  CIVIL  PRINCI- 
PALITY is  SUBJECT  TO  THE  SACERDOTAL."f 

Again,:^:  "  God  hath  made  the  political 

*  —  quoniam  tibi  data  est  omnis  potestas  in  coelo 
et  tn  terra.   Episc.  Tatrac.  sess.  x.  p.  133. 

f  "Politicum  principatum  sacerdotali  esse  subjec- 
tum  nulla  potest  esse  dubitatio."— Ann.  58,  $  23. 

t  Politicum  imperium  subjecit,  spiritualia  ecclesia 
domino.  lb.  $  53. 


136 


GOVERNMENT  SUBJECT  to  the  dominion  of  the 

SPIRITUAL  CHURCH." 

(5.)  Bellarmine*  says,  "The  Pope 
hath  a  supreme  power  of  disposing  the 
TEMPORAL  things  of  ALL  CHRISTIANS  in  Or- 
der to  a  spiritual  good." 

Again,  this  high  authority  says, 

"  The  Ecclesiastical  republic  can  com- 
mand and  COMPEL  the  temporal,  which  is 
indeed  its  subject,  to  change  the  administra- 
tion, and  to  depose  princes,  and  to  appoint 
others  when  it  cannot  otherwise  defend  the 
spiritual  good.f 

(6.)  SuAREz  says,  "The  power  of  the 
Pope  extends  itself  to  the  coercion  of  kings 
with  TEMPORAL  punishments,  and  depriving 
them  of  their  kingdoms  when  necessity  re- 
quires i  nay,  this  power  is  more  necessary 
over  princes  than  over  subjects.":|: 

*  De  Sum.  Pontif.  1.  5.  c.  6. 
t  De  Sum.  Pontif.  1.  5.  c.  7.  ' 
X  Defens.  Fid.  Cath.  lib.  2,  c.  23,  sect.  10, 18,  20. 


137 


(7.)  Father  Creswell*  says,  "  It  is  the 
sentence  of  all  (Roman)  Catholics  that  sab, 
jects  are  bound  to  expel  heretical  princes  if 
I  key  have  slren^thenough^  and  to  this  they 
are  tied  by  the  commandment  of  God,  the 
most  strict  tie  of  conscience,  and  the  ex- 
treme danger  of  their  souls." 

(8.)  AcGus,  Triumphus,  Panobmitan, 
Alvarus,  and  many  others,  (so  speaks  Bel- 
larmine,)  say — 

"  The  Pope  hath,  by  divine  right,  a  most 
full  power  over  the  whole  world,  both  eccle- 
siastical and  civiW^ 

(9.)  AzoRius,  and  Santarel  say,  "  The 
Pope  hath  a  supreme  and  absolute  authority : 

'th  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal  power 
^  in  the  Pope."f 

(10.)  Weston,:J:  Rector  of  the  College 

♦  In  Fhilopat.sect.  2,  n.  160,  et.  152. 
H  Tayl.  Diss.  Pop.,  p.  132-3. 

X  Sanctuar.  Jur.  Pontificii  qu.  15,  sec.  5,  qu.  17,  sec. 

6,  qu.  27,  sect.  7,  Catal.  Glor,  Mundi.  par.  4,  consid. 

7,  Ex  Zoderico. 


138 


at  Doway,  says,  "  The  Church  hath .  the 
right  of  a  superior  lord  over  the  rights  of 
princes  and  their  temporalities ;  and  by  her 
jurisdiction  she  disposes  of  temporals  ui  de 
suopeculio,  as  of  her  own  proper  goods." 

It  is  not  true  that  the  above  doctrines  are 
"  individual  opinions,"  for  besides  the  fact 
that  such  a  vast  body  of  Romish  doctors 
thus  speak,  Father  Ores  well*  expressly  says 
of  this  doctrine, 

^^Jtis  the  sentence  of  all  {^Roman)  Catholics^''^ 
whilst  Father  Rosweydj-  pronounces  those 
who  do  not  admit  these  doctrines 

"  Half  Christians^  harking  Royalists^  and 

A  NEW  SECT  OF  (RoMAN)  CaTHOLICS," 

whilst  again, 

BellarmineiJ:  vouches  for  the  common 
opinion  of  the  Romanists  to  be, 

*  In  Philopat.  sect.  2,  n.  160,  162. 
t  Lib.  de  Fide  Hsret.  Scroanda. 
+  "  Sententia  media  caf/ioiicorum  comfftimis."  Bell. 
V.  i. 


139 


"  That  by  reason  of  the  spiritual  power, 
the  Pope,  at  least  indirectly,  hath  a  supreme 
power  even  in  temporal  matters.''^ 

But  we  have  a  more  conclusive  array  of 
proof  yet  to  be  offered,  viz: — the  Bulls  and 
Decrees  of  the  Popes  themselves j  which  will 
demonstrate  the  essential  political  character 
of  the  anti-scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Pope's 
supremacy. 

II. 

Proof  from  the  Papal  Bulls  and  Decrees* 

We  shall  commence  with  the  Popes  of 
the  sixteenth  century. 

(1.)  A.  D.  1585.  Pope  Sixtus  V.  issued 
a  Bull  against  Henry  King  of  Navarre,  and 
the  Prince  of  Conde.    It  thus  begins  : 

"  The  authority  given  to  St.  Peter  and 
his  successors,  by  the  immense  power  of 
the  Eternal  King,  excels  all  the  powers  of 
earthly  kings  and  princes.  It  passes  un- 
controllable sentence  upon  them  all.  And 


140 


if  it  find  any  of  them  resisting  God's  ordi- 
nance, it  takes  more  severe  vengeance  of 
them,  casting  them  down  from  their  thrones, 
though  never  so  puissant,  and  tumbling 
them  down  to  the  lowest  parts  of  the  earth, 
as  the  ministers  of  aspiring  Lucifer."* 

(2.)  A.  D.  1570.  Bull  of  Pope  Pius  V. 
against  Elizabeth,  Queen  of  England. 

"  He  that  reigneth  on  high,  to  whom  is 
given  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  hath 
committed  the  one  holy  Catholic  and  Apos- 
tolic Church,  out  of  which  there  is  no  sal- 
vation, to  one  alone  on  earth,  namely,  to 
Peter,  prince  of  apostles,  and  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  to  be  governed  with  a  plenitude  of 
power :  this  one  he  hath  constituted  prince 
over  all  nations  and  all  kingdoms,  thai  he 
might  pluck  up,  destroy,  dissipate,  ruinate, 
plant,  and  build."-f 

*  Ab  iinmensa  fsterni  Reges  poteiitia,  &c.— Bulla  » 

Six.  V.  contr.  &c.  | 

t  Rdgnans  in  excelsis,  cui  data  est,  &c.— F.  Pius  | 

V.  in  Bull,  contr.  R.  Eiiz.  | 


141 


(3.)  A.  D.  1294.  Pope  Boniface  VIII. 
made  a  decree,  which  was  confirmed  by  the 
Lateran  Council,  in  the  Bull  of  Pope  Leo 
X.* 

"  One  sword  must  be  under  another,  and 
the  temporal  authority  must  be  subject  to 
the  spiritual  power  ;  whence,  if  the  earthly 
p«wer  doth  go  astray,  it  must  be  judged  by 
the  spiritual  power." f 

Baronius:^  says  of  Boniface's  decree, 
*^All  do  assent  to  it^  so  that  none  dissenteih 
who  doth  not  by  discord  fall  from  the  Church.^'' 

(4.)  Pope  Innocent  III.  uses  the  follow- 
ing language  : 

"  The  pontifical  power  so  much  exceeds 
the  royal  power,  as  the  sun  doth  the  moon." 

♦  Council  Lateran,  Sess.  xi.  p.  153:  "Innovamus 
n  approbamus." 

f  Oportet  gladium  esse  sub  gladi,  &c.  Extrav.  com. 
.  i.  tit.  8,  c.  i, 

t  Haec.  Bonifacius,  cui  assentiuntur  omnes,  &c. 
Vnn.  1053,  $  14. 


142 


In  proof  of  which  he  quotes  Jeremiah  i.  10, 
"  See,  I  have  set  thee  over  the  nations  and 
over  the  kingdoms,  to  root  out,  and  to  pull 
down,  and  to  destroy,"*  &c. 

(5.)  A.  D.  1088.  Pope  Urban  II.  set 
forth  the  following  doctrine : 

"  Subjects  are  hy  no  authority  constrained 
to  pay  the  fidelity  which  they  have  sworn  to  a 
Christian  prince,  who  opposeth  God  and  his 
saints,  or  violateth  their  precepts."-|' 

(6.)  Pope  Gregory  VII.  Hildebrand,  sets 
forth  the  political  character  of  the  papal 
power,  in  his  epistles,:}:  and  in  the  councils 
under  him.  For  example,  these  are  his 
words  in  reference  to  King  Henry: 

"  I  absolve  all  Christians  subject  to  the 
empire,  from  that  oath,  whereby  they  were 

*  Ut  quanta  est  inter  solem  et  lunam,  tanta,  &c. 
In  Decret.  Greg.  lib.  i.  tit.  33,  cap.  6. 

1  "  Fidelitatem   nulla  cohibentur  auctoritate 

persolvere."  Caus.  xv.  qu.  7,  cap.  5. 

X  Ep.  55.— Ep.  4:  2.-8:  21.— 1:  58.-2:  5,  &c.  &c. 


143 


wont  to  plight  their  faith  unto  true  kings ; 
for  it  is  right  that  he  should  be  deprived  of 
dignity,  who  doth  erideavour  to  diminish  the 
majesty  of  the  Churchy* 

But  there  yet  remains  a  third  source  of 
proof,  which  is  still  more  direct,  pertinent, 
and  conclusive. 

III. 

Proof  from  Historical  Facts. 

We  shall  commence  with  some  facts  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  then  adduce  in- 
stances from  former  ages. 

(1.)  Pope  SixTus  V.  interfered  with  the 
King  of  Navarre,  and  the  Prince  of  Conde, 
deposing  them,  and  absolving  their  subjects 
from  their  oath  of  allegiance.  These  are 
his  very  words : 

"  We  deprive  them  and  their  posterity  for 

*  Et  Christianos  omnes  imperio  subjectos,  jnra- 
mento  illo  absolve,  &c.  Plat,  in  Greg.  VIII.  et  torn 
7.  Cone.  Rom.  iii.  apud  Bin.  p.  484. 


144 


ever  of  their  dominions  and  kingdoms." — 
"  By  the  authority  of  these  presents,  we  do 
absolve  and  set  free  all  persons,  as  well 
jointly  as  severally,  from  any  such  oath, 
and  from  all  duty  whatsoever  in  regard  of 
dominion,  fealty,  and  obedience ;  and  do 
charge  and  forbid  all  and  every  of  them, 
that  they  do  not  dare  to  obey  them,  or  any  of 
their  admonitions,  laws,  and  commands."* 
(2.)  Pope  Pius  V.  interfered  with  the 
civil  rights  of  our  mother  country,  and  dared 
to  depose  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  absolve  the 
English  nation  from  their  svjorn  allegiance. 
Now  this  is  an  instance  which  Americans 
can  feel — it  took  place  in  1570 — only  two 
hundred  and  seventy-three  years  ago.  Listen 
to  the  very  words  of  this  "  Spiritual  anti- 
Political,!  and  meek  successor  of  the  Fish- 
erman."!!!t 

*  A  juramento  hujusmodi,  ac  omne,  «fec.— Bulla 
Sixti  V.  &c. 

f  "Ipsam  prcEtensi  regni  jure  dignitate  privi- 

legioque  privamus."   P.  Pius  V.  in  Bull,  &c. 


145 


We  thereby  deprive  the  queen  of  her 
pretended  right  to  the  kingdom,  and  of  all 
dominion,  dignity,  and  privilege  whatso- 
ever; and  absolve  all  the  nobleSI  subjects, 
and  people  of  the  kingdom,  and  whoever 
else  have  sworn  to  her,  from  their  oath,  and 
all  duty  whatsoever,  in  regard  of  dominion, 
fidelity,  and  obedience." 

(3.)  Pope  Clement  VI.  deposed  the 
Emperor  Lewis  IV. 

(4.)  Pope  LvNOCEXT  III.  deposed  the 
Emperor  Frederick  II.,  using  the  words, 

"We  do — accordingly  by  sentence,  de- 
prive ;  absolving  all  who  are  held  bound  by 
oath  of  allegiance  from  such  oath  for  ever ; 
by  apostolical  authority  firmly  prohibiting, 
that  no  man  henceforth  do  obey  or  regard 
him  as  emperor  or  king."* 

(5.)  Pope  Innocent  III.  deposed  the 
Emperor  Otho  IV. 


*  p.  Innoc  IV.  in  Lone.  Lus'l, 

10 


146 


(6.)  Pope  Paschal  II.  deprived  Henry 
IV. 

(7.)  Pope  Gregory  II.  withdrew  sub- 
jection from  the  Eastern  Emperor,  and  re- 
belled against  his  authority,  of  which  the 
celebrated  Romish  Baronius  says,  "  He  did 
leave  to  posterity  a  worthy  example,  thai 
heretical  princes  should  not  he  suffered  to  reign 
in  the  Church  of  Christ,  if,  being  warned, 
they  were  found  pertinacious  in  error 

The  above  historical  facts  are  abundantly 
sufficient  to  show  the  exercise  of  the  right 
which  the  Romish  doctors  and  popes  claim, 
of  the  papal  power  interfering  with  the  poli- 
tics of  nations.  It  is  needless  to  add  far- 
ther proof,  or  we  might  adduce  at  full  length 
the  case  of  Chilperick,  King  of  France,  de- 
posed by  the  Pope ; — of  Albert,  King  of  the 
Romans,  put  in  the  throne  of  Philip  the 
Fair; — of  Henry  IV.,  against  whom  the 

*  Sic  dignum  posteris  reliquit  exemplum.  Ann 
730,  $  4. 


147 


Pope  armed  Henry's  son,  and  the  unnatural 
scene  was  presented,  of  a  son  fighting  against 
his  own  father,  taking  him  prisoner,  thrust- 
ing him  into  a  monastery,  where  he  died 
with  grief  and  hunger; — of  Dandalus,  Duke 
of  Venice,  whom  the  Pope  bound  with 
chains,  and  fed  as  dogs  are  fed,  with  bones 
and  scraps  under  his  table  ; — of  Henry  XI., 
and  John  of  England. 

If  the  Romish  sect  "  7i€rer  cAange.s,"  then 
the  principles  of  St.  Thomas,  Baronius,  Bel- 
larmine,  Suarez,  Creswell,  Triumphus,  Pa- 
normitan,  Alvarus,  Cassenaeus,  Zodericus, 
Petrus  de  Monte,  Bozi\is,  and  other  learned 
teachers  of  Romanism,  must  be  (or  ought  to 
be)  the  principles  of  modem  Romanists.  If 
the  Romish  sect  "  never  changes,''''  then  the 
principles  of  Popes  Sixtus  V.,  Pius  V., 
Boniface  VIII.,  Innocent  III.,  Urban  II., 
Gregory  VIL,  must  be  {or  ought  to  be)  the 
joinciples  of  modern  Romanists. 

If  the  Romish  sect  "  never  cftxinges,'*''  then 


148 


the  principles  which  prompted  the  political 
interference  of  Popes  Sixtus  V.,  Pius  V., 
Clement  VI.,  Innocent  IV.,  Innocent  III., 
Paschal  II.,  and  Gregory  II.,  must  be  (or 
ought  to  he)  the  principles  of  modern  Ro- 
manists. 

I  have  but  one  more  word  to  add,  and  that 
is — if  the  modern  Romanists  do  deny  the 
political  power  of  the  Roman  Pontiflf  over 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  as  well  as  over 
the  "  Roman  States,"  they  are  so  classed 
among  "  heretics.'''^  For  thus  saith  Bellar- 
MiNE,  "  There  is  a  sort  of  heretics  lurking 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Church  all  about  Chris- 
tendom, and  in  some  places,  stalking  with 
open  face,  w^ho  restrain  the  Pope's  authority 
so  far,  as  not  to  allow  him  any  power  over 
sovereign  princes  in  temporal  affairs ;  much 
less  any  power  of  depriving  them  of  their 
kingdoms  and  principalities."* 

*  Nullam  habere  temporalem  pofcslatem,  net- 
posse  ullo  mode.&c.   Bell.  V.  i. 


149 


Whilst  again,  thus  saith  Baronius, 
"  They  are  all  branded  for  heretics,  who 
take  from  the  Church  of  Rome  and  See  of 
Peter,  one  of  the  two  swords,  and  allow 
unly  the  spiritual 


*  Hffiresis  errore  notantur  omnes,  &c.  Ann.  1053, 
$  14.  "Hasresis  Politicorum."  Ann.  1073,  13.  $ 


CHAPTER  XII. 


Conclusion. 

There  has  now  been  presented  a  brief 
sketch  of  the  more  prominent  facts,  afforded 
by  the  faithful  records  of  history,  by  the  aid 
of  which,  at  least  the  younger  members  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England  and 
the  United  States,  may  see  the  true  position 
of  their  Church,  aud  refute  the  incessant 
misrepresentations  which  are  heaped  upon 
her. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Church  of  the 
living  God  was  planted  in  Great  Britain  by 
apostolic  hands,  and  from  the  testimony  of 
credible  writers  planted  by  the  great  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles,  St.  Paul. 


151 


We  have  traced  this  one  true  Church  in 
its  various  stages  of  prosperity  and  adver- 
sity, till  blighted  with  the  increasing  cor- 
ruptions which  her  connection  with  Rome 
introduced,  and  trammeled  by  the  spiritual 
tyranny  which  the  novel  dogma  of  the 
Pope's  Supremacy  created, — the  period  of 
her  release,  the  Reformation,  arrived,  and 
she  restored  herself  to  original  purity  and 
independence. 

We  have  examined  the  rise,  progress  and 
character  of  that  anti- scriptural  and  novel 
dogma,  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  the  source  of 
much  doctrinal  error,  and  the  active  cause'of 
schism,  wherever  the  Romish  Church  ex- 
tends her  influence. 

We  have  seen  that  though  in  Italy  the 
Romish  Church  is  a  legitimate  branch  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  having  never  separated 
from  an  older  Church  in  that  country,  still 
she  errs  in  doctrine,  and  needs  reformation; 
whilst  in  England  and  the  United  States 


X 

152 

Romanists  are  a  mere  schismatical  body,  a 
sect,  which  separated  from  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth. 

And  now,  after  this  examination,  it  will 
not  be  a  difficult  point  for  any  one  to  per- 
ceive, that  the  true  Catholic  is  no  Romanist; 
that  whilst  entertaining  kindness  for  the  per- 
sons  of  Romanists,  he  entertains  no  affinity 
for  their  errors. 

The  creed  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church- 
man is  the  Apostles  or  Nicene  Creed,  which 
has  been  received  always,  everywhere,  and 
by  all  the  Church.  The  Creed  of  the  Ro- 
manist is  the  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV., 
which  adds  twelve  new  articles  to  the  old 
Creed. 

All  that  the  Romanist  has  which  is 
"  Catholic,"  "  Orthodox,"  and  Scriptural, 
we  have,  in  greater  perfection. 
'  What,  then,  is  our  duty,  as  members  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  these  United 
States  ]  What,  but  that  we  should  stand  to 


153 


our  posts,  every  one  of  us,  be  he  priest  or 
layman,  and,  by  the  help  of  God,  pray, 
labor,  live,  and  if  needs  be,  die  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  interests  of  our  spiritual 
mother. 

Let  the  younger  members  of  the  Church, 
more  especially,  remember  they  have  not 
been  baptized  into  a  sed^  which  cannot  date 
its  origin  farther  back  than  the  reformation, 
but  that  they  have  been  placed  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Church  of  the  living  God,  w^hich  has 
been  perpetuated  by  apostolical  succession, 
amid  all  the  vicissitudes  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious change,  from  Jesus  Christ  himself,  the 
original  source  of  authority. 

Let  them  strive  to  know  more  of  the  his- 
tory, doctrines,  and  evangelical  spirituality 
of  their  Church,  and  to  show  by  their  un- 
flinching adherence  to  her  interests,  that 
they  feel  as  well  as  know  their  privilege. 

There  is  no  weapon  formed  against  the 
Church  in  this  land  which  can  prosper,  if 


154 


we,  fellow-Churchmen,  old  and  young,  are 
true  to  our  duty.  Let  us  join,  then,  heart 
and  hand,  in  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  extend 
the  faith  of  Christ  committed  to  us,  among 
all  who  know  it  not,  or  who  know  it,  yet 
misrepresent  it. 

In  the  name  of  God,  let  us  understand 
whether  we  be  the  members  of  a  sect,  or 
whether  we  be  members  of  the  Holy  Catho- 
lic Church.  If  we  believe  ourselves  to  be- 
long to  no  sect,  then  let  us  not  lead  others 
to  think  we  do,  and  that  we  regard  schism 
as  no  sin : — let  us  stand  forth  in  meekness, 
yet  without  compromise,  protesting  against 
a// perversions  of  the  original  faith,  refusing 
to  identify  ourselves  with  any  error,  be  it 
Romanism  or  Puritanism ;  let  us  prove  by 
our  prayers  and  deeds  of  benevolence  that 
we  love  the  persons  of  those  whose  errors^ 
great  or  small,  we  cannot  love;  judging 
harshly  of  none,  but  maintaining  the  truth 
in  the  presence  of  all.    Let  us  not  be  care- 


155 


tul  for  results^  knowing  they  are  in  the  hands 
of  that  God  who  saith  to  the  raging  sea, 
"  Hitherto  shalt  thou  come,  but  no  further : 
and  here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed."* 


*  Job  xxxviii,  11. 


"If  I  forget  thee,  O  Jerusalem,  let  my  right  hand 
forget  her  cunning. 

If  I  do  not  remember  thee,  lei  my  tongue  cleave 
to  the  roof  of  my  mouth,  If  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem 
above  my  chief  joy."— rs.  cxxxvii. 


hi 


f 


p 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1012  01017  0068 


